911 To Many Coincidences Were Made To Happened!

reply to post by Amaterasu


You are right! and I chose not to ingage to anything they have to say.

Any reader can see what they are doing.

People are not as stupid as they think.

I must have really upset the gatekeepers of liers for the Government when I posted this.

The Port Authority persented twice to the city of NYC

for demolition of the WTC in 1998 and in 1999.

Why because they were unsafe a health risk!

This is my opinion when I make this statement: People who wholly surport the Government story of 911 and refuse to look at scientific evidences that proves the Government has been lying to Americans
are supporters of an evil Government take over.

To me these people are sell outs against the American people.
and I see more and more of them trolling in all the 911 threads.
These people should be lock up for Treason!

So there is no mistake I said people who WHOLLY surport the Government story of 911 and refuse to look at scientific evidences.

Now back to my thread, I believe the Port Authority had something to do with helping to blow up the WTC.

Port Authority are the true owners of the WTC some of the gatekeepers keep say Silverstein own the trade center that is a lie.
Silverstein only lease the trade Centers.

reply to post by cashlink


Unsafe and a health risk....yep, thats why they would sell the complex. Ninety-seven percent occupied...yep, sounds unsafe to me.

Not sure where you got that the Port Authority wanted to demolish the buildings...actually I am pretty sure now that I think about it....but its not the truth.

These people should be lock up for Treason!

Bring it on.

You really think the government cares about what we have to say on ATS?

reply to post by cashlink


How interesting...

The port authority trid to get the buildings demoed in 98 and 99? But of course you have no evidence of this.

Buildings brought down by controlled demolitions fall faster than free fall? Again, no evidence of this.

Anyone that disagrees with you is an agent of an evil govt takeover?

This includes the Port Authority too?

Anyone want to guess what is next?

Cashlink...Is English a second language to you? Your posts read like bulk spam e-mails. So I was wondering if you were some sort of Jihadist just doing your best to post in English and plopping a picture of some white dude and his dog on your posts as an Avatar.

Ya know-- Everytime I hear someone suggesting that I am getting paid BY THE US GOVT. to post my views on issues regarding 9/11...

The FIRST thing I think is "Who is paying YOU to suggest this?"

We have already eliminated the USA... Sooo.. Who is it? The NEo-NAZi's? Are YOU a disguised radical islamic provocatuer? Just following up on your terrorist attack moving into a second phase of a propaganda war?

I mean how many of you "truthers" are actually muslim extremists hell-bent on dividing and conquering the filthy infidels of Amerika?

In this nameless, faceless corner of the internet you could be anyone! And by judging some peoples ability to type simple English words and sentences... I find my accusation plausible.

The ones that really raise my suspicion are those posters with "patriot" or " freedomfighter" ect. or display avatars dipicting some type of American icon. Yet preach reasons to hate America on a GLOBAL forum DAILY.

So the next time you ask if I am on a U.S. Government payroll... I WILL be asking: "How long have you been following up on your 9/11 terrorist attack with your internet propaganda campaign."

reply to post by Taxi-Driver


English is my first and only language. The reason my grammer and spelling fall below your level of acceptance is fourteen years of severe emotional and physical child abuse. Thankfully I received anough therapy to function as a normal human being. While this abuse was going on I was hardly able to learn much about grammer and spelling.
Today I continue learning but none the less seem to get my points across to most people who take an extra second to understand me.

I am American and always have been and I am not a terrorist. Same for my Bedlington Terrier.

reply to post by gavron


Then you need to do your research I will not do it for you.

I am not here to disprove the Government Conspiracies that you hang on to .
I am here to find the truth just like alot of wonderfull poster in here are trying to do.

Oh and thank you for makeing me on your foe list .

reply to post by cashlink


Cash,

Please do not think less of anyone in here, none of us could have known the trauma you encountered as a child. It is a shame that such abuse continues every minute of every day.

I am 100% certain the members here will give you the latitude you deserve in your less than perfect grammar. Although we may be on different sides of this particular event, I sincerely hope we are all on the same side when it come to children being abused.

Let's put this aside and get back to 911 debates. Where by chance you are totally WRONG!!!

Take care !!

-TY-

Wow, i'm actually surprised this topic is still being discussed. I think everyone on ATS has done research on 9/11 and found out it was an inside job.

So this does not need to be discussed further, but if you wana bash the discussion go right on ahead.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Nope. My job is to laugh. The odds of the 19 terrorists succeeding in their hijacking are a lot lower than the odds of a vast inside job being completed and no one talking about it.

No one on the INSIDE, you mean, I presume...

Plenty of analysis and talk going on by those on the OUTSIDE. And there have been many examples in history where the wool was pulled majorly over the eyes of the public - Gulf of Tonkin comes to mind as just one little one.

And lessee... Bush said, "There's our Pearl Harbor..."

And Cheney snapped at the guy reporting the approach of a plane who asked if the orders (to do nothing) still stood, that OF COURSE the orders still stood. Had the guy heard any differently?

So... Yeah, there have been insiders that have said a few things.

But I guess you still think Kennedy was shot by a lone whacko...

I am not sure where you get your several hundred trillion to one, but that number is pure BS.

Hmmm...

Probabilities presuming the Official Conspiracy Theory:

Three high-rise buildings collapse from fire on the same day (two in less than an hour) - when never had any high-rise building collapsed before (or since) from fire, even when having burned for as much as 18 hours... Probability? Slim to none.

Virtually all the concrete in the Towers pulverized to dust... Probability? Slim to none.

NORAD was off practicing scenarios, one of which was a "plane is hijacked and flown into a building" the same day... Probability? Slim.

Knowing exactly who did it less than an hour afterwards, with no investigation or forensics... Probability? Slim to none.

Bomb dogs were caged and not sniffing for explosives... Probability? Slim.

Explosion in basement moments before first "plane" hits... Probability? Slim to none.

Engine from the wrong plane found nearby after event... Probability? Virtually none.

No complete forensics done in the biggest crime in our lifetime... Probability? None.

President and VP fight any investigation for 14 months... Probability? None.

President and VP refuse to testify under oath... Probability? None.

President and VP insist on testifying (without oath) together... None.

Only passport found happens to be a "terrorist's..." Probability? Slim to none.

Noise and dust coming from an empty floor days before the incident... Probability? Low.

Condy Rice saying it never occurred to anyone that planes might be used in that way wnen NORAD had been doing the very scenario the day of the incident... Probability? Low.

There is much more. But here there are probabilities with "None" - yet I was generous and gave hundreds of trillions to one.

I could list more but this will suffice to prove my point.

Originally posted by cashlink
The Port Authority persented twice to the city of NYC

for demolition of the WTC in 1998 and in 1999.

Why because they were unsafe a health risk!

In fact, they were stated to be deconstructed (building a VERY expensive scaffolding to do so, because controlled demo was deemed too dangerous) by 2007. The steel and aluminum had catalyzed in a reaction with one another and had created weaknesses at the base (the area that faired best in the whole affair).

Very few seem to be aware of the fact that they were slated to come down.

(There's a few more probabilities in there that I didn't mention - like the probability of an owner being adamant about huge "terrorist attack" policies, building that would cost millions to take down just happening to be the target, oh and also put options on the stock market much higher for exactly the airlines involved... Oh, and they haven't been collected... Hmmm....)

Wretched are all of you who perpetuate the lie. May the Universe deal with you appropriately.

Originally posted by Amaterasu




Probabilities presuming the Official Conspiracy Theory:

Learn to read. Your 6 year old theories have been explained 10 times over.

Geesh.

Originally posted by cashlink
Oh and thank you for makeing me on your foe list .

Actually, check again. I am marked as a friend.

I just find it unusual that you want to "find the truth", but some of your ideals/opinions are quite "unique".

Port Authority in on 9/11 ?

Controlled demolitions always falling faster than free fall?

Anyone who questions those ideals are instantly part of an evil govt?

After reading through the thread a little more heres some things people should get straight.

Heres a video of wtc 7 falling notice the crimp when it falls

www.youtube.com...

Controlled Demolitions do not fall faster then free fall, its impossible it goes against Newtons law.

Example dropping two objects (same shapes) with different weight at the same time travel the same speed.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Now see, there you go, wanting to base your odds on false information. No wonder the several hundred trillion came up in your calculations.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by cashlink
The Port Authority persented twice to the city of NYC

for demolition of the WTC in 1998 and in 1999.

Why because they were unsafe a health risk!

In fact, they were stated to be deconstructed (building a VERY expensive scaffolding to do so, because controlled demo was deemed too dangerous) by 2007.

How odd. None of that was mentioned in this article in the New York Times, Sept 24, 1998:

query.nytimes.com...

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is expected to vote today to put the World Trade Center -- its flagship property and the largest office complex in the country -- on the market, officials said yesterday.

Gov. George E. Pataki of New York said in an interview that after speaking to Gov. Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, he was ''very confident'' the agency's commissioners would move ahead with the plan.

If the proposal is adopted, the Port Authority will seek bids from private developers for a 99-year lease on the vast complex, whose twin towers and other buildings contain 10.5 million square feet of office space and 300,000 square feet of retail. The bistate agency would technically remain the owner -- a legal status officials say could simplify the financial aspects of the transaction -- but such a lease would effectively put the Trade Center in private hands.

The proposal comes at a high point for both the downtown real estate market and the Trade Center itself, which is now 94 percent occupied after having been partly emptied by the 1993 terrorist bombing.

The sale was strictly a financial deal, and there is zero mention about doing any "scaffolding".

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

it was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem.



Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.

www.arcticbeacon.com...

reply to post by cashlink


You didnt even include the cryptic esoteric symbols involved...the numbers, the folded currency, the illuminati card game, the days between 911 and madrid. Kinda goes on and on and on.

Heres the scary part. Many here still believe the 911 Committees findings of the official story and there is no conspiracy whatsoever.

reply to post by cashlink


Asbestos from where? The fireproofing?

You do realize that the only asbestos fireproofing was from floor 1 to 36 (i believe it was 36) of WTC 1 right?

reply to post by cashlink


Cashlink...as usual...you are wrong. Asbestos-based fire protection had been applied only to 38 floors of tower 1. About half of that had been removed as of 9/11. There was no requirement for the rest to be removed: its replacement was voluntary. The WTC was fully leased and rented on 9/11. Its office and retail space was highly profitable. And by the way, WTC 7 opened in 1987, and did not use asbestos for fireproofing.

NEXT?