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.

 

Be honest!

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Zero please keep a cool head. I have tons on 9-11. And I'm afraid too believe me. But getting mad and exploding won't solve anything.




posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by zer0effect
 


ZeroEffect - It is very easy to walk into a room and shout that everyone is wrong without proof of why you believe the people on this site are "People with their heads up their *beep* so they can hide from the real threat in this world...and indulge their paranoid, bi-polar delusions...and wait for the aliens from space to come rescue them."

I think there is a VAST difference between paranoid, bi polar delusions and not always taking things at face value. American's, on a whole, lack a critical mind and eye. We DO often take things at face value, because that is often how things are sold to us.

You ask people to be honest, yet you refuse to listen to people. This tells me that you might not be thinking critically.

9-11 is not a game. Nor is it a casual conversation topic. This event was for some, perhaps the most REAL thing they have ever felt. REAL Fear, REAL hatred for the the ones responsible, REAL vengence, REAL compassion and REAL understanding.

Unfortunately, there is a REAL lack of information about all of this. So I would urge you to look at all sides.

I have looked everywhere i can for answers and my conclusion is that there is FAR more than meets the eye. I believe the government had some hand in this.

But just because you may be right, doesn't make me wrong.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Dear zer0effect:

Here’s the thing. We’re killing people based on 9-11 events. We’ve gone to war because of it and have occupied/conquered another country. We’d better be sure we’re fighting the ‘right’ people, the culprits of the crimes against us, ones who have done us harm. Or else we are no different than the Nazi stormtroopers who sang Christmas carols in the trenches on the Russian front, thinking they were doing the right thing too.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
A small example of inaccuracies and failing to 'deny ignorance' just in this very thread:


Remember, the majority of our countries population is not especially bright...and they will believe just about anything they see on TV or read on the internet.

Opinion passed off as fact.


World War III is coming; and it's coming out of the Middle East.

Opinion passed off as fact.


Wasn't this disproven in January 2004 when Chief U.S. WMD inspector David Kay resigned having found no sign of the threat Iraq faced?

Right then and there any idea of some massive "Islamofascist" threat ceased to exist and now resides only within the minds of the pro-war mindset types.

Prior to the invasion, Iraq was one of the most secular countries in the Middle East. Because of this, your reply has little to do with what you quoted.


I have seen plenty to convince me that the US gov had some hand in this. It is the fact the this White House has given little to no ifno about this that tips me off.

Circular reasoning here. You think the US government had a hand in it because it hasn't admitted to having a hand in it?


here we have one of the biggest events in history and this White House doesnt even hold an investigation.

There were investigations (9/11 Commission Report, NIST) and still are ongoing investigations (NIST regarding WTC7).


You don't screw up something that badly and claim it's accidental. Too much money is involved in global intelligence to make that type of mistake.

You do if you're one of the most narrow minded, hard headed, incompetent administrations this country has ever seen.


The Port Autority and Larry Silverstein had a hand in it I do believe. Now the airplanes still trying to figure that one out.

In other words, you're still attempting to bend facts to fit your preconceived theory.


My belief is that the collapse was a insurance scam. Look what Larry gained after the attacks.

Show me, from your own research, what Larry gained after the attacks. Hint: not much, if anything at this point.


Pentagon- Have no idea since there's no proof.

In other words, no proof that gels with your preconceived theory. There's mountains of proof if one has an open mind.


The wtc on tv I saw two planes crash into the wtc. I do believe that the wtc 1 2 and 7 were demoed. Because they fell the same way.

Wrong, the failure of WTC7 was different to the ones of WTC1 & 2.

This is just a small example of some of the "information" that gets slung around in this 9/11 forum. This is all taken from just a single thread, too. I'm convinced that people here do absolutely no research, except for watching a YouTube video here and there. They make up their minds that this was an 'inside job' and go from there, ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

I have debated with some rather intelligent, well spoken and well researched 9/11 conspiracy theorists and my hats go off to them. They didn't quite convince me, but at least they didn't spew old 'facts' that could easily be disproved with a simple google search or trip to the local library. They gave me plenty of food for thought and required that I go back and learn a little more myself, which is something I always welcome.

Take care all, and I didn't mean to be harsh, if that's how I came off.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
The problem is there is too much information. I'm trying to make heads or tails of it and all I get is a headache.


Help us out here please.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Leyla
 



Since when is killing all of your tenants and destroying all of your assets a "good" business plan? Silverstein is not making any profit off of this disaster. Prove otherwise from credible sources if you have the inclination.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Speakeasy1981
Prior to the invasion, Iraq was one of the most secular countries in the Middle East. Because of this, your reply has little to do with what you quoted.


I beg to differ. Iraq was invaded and occupied solely for the reason of it's alleged WMDs and it's ability to proliferate them to islamic extremist terrorists. Which we found out later was completely false.

Don't tell me the Iraq invasion and occupation has nothing to do with 9/11. It had everything to do with it or it would have never taken place. If the Iraq invasion had happened without 9/11, the U.S. government you see now would not exist. Completely different politicians would be in power and the U.S. would have pulled out in January 2005 with criminal charges being brought up on the previous administration.

My reply was completely on topic and matched perfectly the text I quoted. You just want to ignore this.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


He did have coverage for terror attacks by Swissre. But your other question I can't answer.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

I beg to differ. Iraq was invaded and occupied solely for the reason of it's alleged WMDs and it's ability to proliferate them to islamic extremist terrorists. Which we found out later was completely false.

You said it yourself, "which we found out later was completely false". In other words, your previously mentioned statement was inaccurate, so the threat of "Islamofascism" remained unchanged.


Don't tell me the Iraq invasion and occupation has nothing to do with 9/11. It had everything to do with it or it would have never taken place. If the Iraq invasion had happened without 9/11, the U.S. government you see now would not exist. Completely different politicians would be in power and the U.S. would have pulled out in January 2005 with criminal charges being brought up on the previous administration.

I'm not sure how to address this, since it's basically all your opinion. So...nice opinion?

I can try and say that details for invading Iraq were well on the table prior to 9/11 even occurring, so there is a very good chance that the Iraq war would've happened with or without 9/11. But, due to 9/11, the government was able to play on the fears of the public and get things rolling a bit quicker than they would've otherwise. Any link between Saddam and Al Qaeda was extraordinarily weak and was quickly squashed. Thus the shift in focus to 'spreading democracy'.


My reply was completely on topic and matched perfectly the text I quoted. You just want to ignore this.

I do? Thanks, I was wondering what I wanted to do and it was very kind of you to fill me in.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leyla
The problem is there is too much information. I'm trying to make heads or tails of it and all I get is a headache.


Help us out here please.


It's true that it takes quite a bit of time to sort through it all.

A big tip would be to do research from sources that don't have anything to do with 9/11 (i.e. completely neutral). Want to learn about steel? Don't learn about it from a 9/11 conspiracy site or a 9/11 official story site, read about it in an encyclopedia, for example.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
insurance proceeds go towards the reconstruction and the loss in income. what you are suggesting is that he eliminated his tenants so he could collect the lost income from his insurance company which would be, in effect, a wash. Of course there's the inevitable tie up in court as the insurance company fights making the payment, which Silverstein wound up winning 5 billion dollars in settlements. He's using that money to rebuild the towers and make the annual 102 million base rent. He's also suing, with the Port Authority, another insurer for another billion dollars in money owed (250 million in unpaid claims and 750 million in damages).

he isn't profitting from this.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Speakeasy1981
You said it yourself, "which we found out later was completely false". In other words, your previously mentioned statement was inaccurate, so the threat of "Islamofascism" remained unchanged.

You just want to run around in circles with this. The non-threat of Iraq proved just how small any threat "Islamofascism" is. With the USA making up threats in the face of an allegedly real one, any threat the USA perceives to be real should be immediately drawn into question. Attacking, killing human beings, and taking over their countries based upon the threat assessments of the USA should be challenged at every turn.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Sorry couldn't stay away.



Originally posted by Speakeasy1981
A small example of inaccuracies and failing to 'deny ignorance' just in this very thread:


Remember, the majority of our countries population is not especially bright...and they will believe just about anything they see on TV or read on the internet.

Opinion passed off as fact.



I am not going to get into you too much here...because I think we generally agree...hence my original post was about raping facts. But if you read my original post (and actually read it) I said this is "my opinion." So there, smart guy, I was not at all trying to pass anything off as fact....thanks.

And I'll probably disagree with you anyhow, about the majority of the people aren't too bright and will (and do) believe just about anything they see on TV or read on the internet. Can you honestly disagree with this? If yo can, then you just plain aren't paying attention.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Thanks for the post.
I can respect your opinion but I don't agree with it.You've said anyone who doesn't believe the 'Official' version is wrong, yet you provide no proof, evidence, or links to back up that statement.
There are too many holes in the official story.Testimony was left out or ignored and WTC7 barely gets a mention.

1.)Why are almost half of the highjackers still alive?
2.)Why the put options on UA and AA?
3.)Where was air defense?
4.)Where is the plane that hit the Pentagon and why won't the FBI release any footage other than the five frames?
5.)Why is Osama not wanted for 9/11 (according to his FBI sheet)?
6.)Why was Osama's family allowed to fly out of the U.S. even though other aircraft were grounded?
7.)Why were 2 aircraft that supposedly crashed on 9/11 not decommissioned until 4 years later?
8.)Why was there molten metal on ground zero?

I could go on all day and I have plenty of questions.I have researched 9/11 for over a year (a relative new comer) and I find more evidence to support "conspiracy theories" than I find supporting the government's theories.

Too many things don't add up and smell of a cover up.

My thoughts and prayers are with my American cousins today.
Peace



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by zer0effect
C'mon people, there is simply no evidence that the events occurring on 911 were carried out by the US Government. Everything on this site is speculation and opinion...not a fact to be seen!


Here are some facts for you:

- World Trade Center building 7 owner Larry Silverstein said on tape the decision was made to "pull" the building due to damages that day.

- BBC and CNN reported WTC7 had collapsed before it actually did. The live video is still on YouTube.

- WTC7 housed FBI, DEA, NSA, CIA and other Federal, State and Local government offices.

The above are all facts and have been discussed on this board. Do they prove a government conspiracy orchestrated 9/11, no. Do they destroy the credibility of your post stating there are no facts on this board, yes.

Maybe you are too afraid to follow your gut feeling on these issues. I personally believe the investigation into the events of 9/11 was very flawed, as proven by the 9/11 Commission Report. If you are an American, you should at least be ashamed of your government for not properly investigating the most horrific attack of our generation.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by CyberSEAL]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Zero what are your thoughts on U.S. foreign policy and its effects on radical islamists who intend to do our country harm. In the last decade has the United States taken action to make progress in this regard or is the opposite true?



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Speakeasy1981


Don't tell me the Iraq invasion and occupation has nothing to do with 9/11. It had everything to do with it or it would have never taken place.

I'm not sure how to address this, since it's basically all your opinion. So...nice opinion?

I can try and say that details for invading Iraq were well on the table prior to 9/11 even occurring, so there is a very good chance that the Iraq war would've happened with or without 9/11. But, due to 9/11, the government was able to play on the fears of the public and get things rolling a bit quicker than they would've otherwise. Any link between Saddam and Al Qaeda was extraordinarily weak and was quickly squashed. Thus the shift in focus to 'spreading democracy'.



It’s actually the presidents’ opinion, and the OFFICIAL opinion of our entire political leadership — that the Iraq invasion is a direct result of 9-11. It’s part of the “war on terror”. That term is still very much in use as we all know.

Of course the invasion of Iraq was planned long before 9-11. Which further buttresses the proposition that 9-11 was part of this planning as well, i.e. that it was never a terror attack but a false flag event to kick off a series of military conquests in the Middle East. I say series, because it’s safe to say that the Iranian oilfields, located side-by-side and in the same Mesopotamian region as the Iraqi ones, are next on our ‘agenda’.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
insurance proceeds go towards the reconstruction and the loss in income. what you are suggesting is that he eliminated his tenants so he could collect the lost income from his insurance company which would be, in effect, a wash. he isn't profitting from this.


Insurance proceeds normally go straight into the pocket of the policyholder and can be spent any which way he or she pleases. The interest alone on 3.5 billion is 210 million dollars per year (at a six percent rate of return). Larry Silverstein isn’t ‘starving’ that’s for sure.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


Again....Research is key!

Good ol Alex Jones... cliams Lucky Larry got 500 million! FALSE
www.prisonplanet.com...

The funny thing is, Insurance companies like to make sure that insured parties don’t order controlled demolitions to their sky-scrapers, collect the money, and leave town with a nice bank book. There was a clause in Silverstein’s WTC 7 policy that forced him to begin rebuilding within two years, and lenders required that the new building have as much square footage as the old (and they WERE PISSED when the plans came up short ).
“Even as Construction Begins, a New Trade Center Tower Faces Obstacles” New York Times, January 16, 2003
www.wtc.com...
newyorkmetro.com...
www.nytimes.com... kLfe7GM3B2ITbIEg



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   


1.)Why are almost half of the highjackers still alive?


They arent. Some people with similar names are still alive.




2.)Why the put options on UA and AA?


For the same reasons that large amounts of put options had been placed on the airlines about a dozen times earlier in 2001. Because someone thought the stocks were going to drop. American Airlines was set to release a quarterly report in Sept 2001 that wasnt going to be very good news (even before the events of Sept 11) in other words, upon release of that report, AA's stock was going to drop.




3.)Where was air defense?


Well since our air defense was set to intercept threats coming from OUTSIDE the U.S., we really were not prepared for threats INSIDE the U.S. The first jets scrambled that day, in absence of specific orders, ended up orbiting off the East Coast. By the time orders were issued to fly CAP over our cities, it was too late to prevent anything.




4.)Where is the plane that hit the Pentagon and why won't the FBI release any footage other than the five frames?


You mean what was left of the airplane? Checked, investigated and probably recycled, unless it was an instrument or other data storage device. What makes you think there is actually ANY other footage that shows it?




5.)Why is Osama not wanted for 9/11 (according to his FBI sheet)?


Does it really matter? He is already wanted for terrorism against the United States. He is never going to stand trial, when we get him located, a 2,000 pounder will get dropped on his head (or a Hellfire, or a Maverick etc...) and will cease to exist.




6.)Why was Osama's family allowed to fly out of the U.S. even though other aircraft were grounded?


One problem, they didnt. The members of the Bin Laden family here in the US were gathered in one spot so the FBI could interview them. Only after these interviews were complete, were they allowed to leave our country...which was AFTER air traffic resumed.




7.)Why were 2 aircraft that supposedly crashed on 9/11 not decommissioned until 4 years later?


No, their registry numbers were not stricken from the list. Most likely due to oversight.




8.)Why was there molten metal on ground zero?


While I have yet to see any proof of this, I will say this, you had a 8-10 story pile of wreckage above ground (and a few stories underground) that had fires burning underneath it and were being fed fresh air from the subway tunnels that were under the WTC...lets see...metal, fire and fresh air being fed into it like a blast furnace.....



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join