The Unspeakable Truth of 9/11 (undeniable facts concerning 911)

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


I mean seriously, If I had expressed an intrest in leaving my wife but the Judge would not grant a divorce and then 6 months later she is found dead in our house with a bullet in her head wouldn't I at least be investigated? A person of intrest? Anything?

What if in addition to that it was discovered that after applying for a divorce and getting rejected that I took out a million dollar life insurance poicy on her? Would that not at least raise a red flag???Anything?Come on!!!!

What if My Good buddy was the Sheriff and the crime scene was blocked off and important evidence was whisked away never to be seen again?

What if the people wanted a complete investigation and I was the one who performed it? That would be rediculous wouldn't it?
I could go on and on ad nauseum with this scenario but I'm sure you've all gotten the point by now>I hope.

reply to post by cbass


The only problem with those "facts" is, they are not quite true...

If you bother to do any research, you will find that when he was trying to purchase the complex, Larry Silverstein tried to purchase HALF of the insurance he ended up getting. His bankers forced him to get the coverage he had.

The asbestos problem....problem is, there isnt any evidence that there was a problem. All the stories that list asbestos as a problem...get back to one story that someone posted online...no evidence, its more of "a cousin of a buddy who is the uncle of my girlfriend said he was at a meeting....." Indeed, looking at the WHOLE story you will find that the PA had already started getting rid of some of the asbestos that was there. Additionally, asbestos fire coatings were only used in one third of ONE tower. From all evidence I can find, there wasnt an asbestos problem that would make the demolition of the Towers necessary.

But, if all you read is conspiracy sites, I guess I can see how you would think your "facts" are actually facts.......

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Ohh do provide links to the proof of your claims. I eagerly await. My world view is in need of a changin'.

i]reply to post by cbass


Silverstein and insurance...

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding. His lenders, led by GMAC, a unit of General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ), which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, agreed

www.forbes.com...

Then there is this...

Complicating the picture is the fact that there was no insurance policy yet issued on the properties when they were destroyed. Since the Port Authority transferred management of the properties to a group of investors led by Mr. Silverstein shortly before the attack, the insurance policy was under negotiation at the time the buildings collapsed and final wording had not been completed. The insurers have agreed to be bound by the ''binder'' agreements on the coverage although differences of opinion emerged yesterday about their interpretation

WHOOPS...the buildings did not actually have an insurance policy on them when they were destroyed.........

select.nytimes.com...

If you are truly interested in the truth, you will jump through the NYT hurdles to read the whole article...

Asbestos and the WTC

There was a court action by the PA to get their insurers to pay to remove asbestos from ALL PA administrated properties, not just the WTC. And nowhere in the action does it say anything about the Towers needing to be demolished.

“U.S. District Judge John W. Bissell in early February threw out the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey's final claims in a longstanding suit against dozens of insurers over coverage of more than $600 million in asbestos abatement costs at the World Trade Center, New York's three major airports and other Port Authority properties.”

Port loses claim for asbestos removal.(Port Authority of New York and New Jersey), Business Insurance; 5/14/2001; Mcleod, Douglas


Let's see..oh yes...the Israelis...

Most stories state that they were on top with their van, camera at the ready before the Towers were hit....however, thats a lie. The story originates with a lady named, Maria.

The transcript of her interview with 20/20 shows that she had been watching the fires rage on the towers when she saw the van stop and the men get on top of the van......get that part....the towers had already been hit when they showed up with their camera.......

Like I said, do some research, using something other than conspiracy sites, and its not that hard to show that "truther" sites are NOTHING of the sort.

So am I to understand that you actually buy the official version of 911?
Cuz if you do I have some wonderful oceanside property in Arizona that you may be interested in.

hahaha oceanside property in az..good one!!


i havent clickd on your link yet i just read thru the whle thread right now though..
eh like even when it first happend (9/11) i had this like gut feeling something was amiss.. and i was only 17 at the time. i just got this weird vibe and thought it was soo odd how they kept showing it OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
anyway i know u cant base anything on "vibes" and feelings" buut somethin is totally "amiss" w the official 911 story i can just FEEL it.

Originally posted by cbass
So am I to understand that you actually buy the official version of 911?
Cuz if you do I have some wonderful oceanside property in Arizona that you may be interested in.

so swamp fox just wasted his time providing you with links that you asked for..
and you just dismiss it.. I went to your site and read it.. am I a retard?

we don't know for sure what happened that day.. its all conjecture..
the trouble is that the debunkers provide evidence (albeit some from government sources..) but the truthers seem to only be able to cling to the same sacred cows they always have.. "the hole in the pentagon is too small".. "there's no way a jet could have flown so low at that speed".. "the molten steel lasted for weeks".. "there is a pod under the plane".. "cell phones would not work at that altitude".. "the plane landed in Cleveland"..
all have been debunked!

undeniable facts? just like Ranke's "independently confirmed" "proven" stance on the invisible flyover.. sheesh..

government complicity on 9/11 IS in question.. but most details of the physical evidence have been thoroughly discussed.. there are gazillions of detailed sites both truther and skeptic that have been studied for years.. new evidence comes out once in awhile which leads to modifications of theory.. aerospace web for instance, in the summer of 2006 addressed the claim that a big boeing crashing into the Pentagon was an impossibility..
after their report "loose change" updated their presentation and dropped the no plane theory.. most sensible truthers have as well..

swampy gave you some good direction.. maybe another look will help~pccat

reply to post by TheBadge


I am sad to say that I was just the opposite. I bought it hook line and sinker. I remember Howard Stern having Charlie Sheen on saying that it was a controlled demolition and I was so mad at him. What a quack I thought. What kind of idiot would say something like that?

Then I started looking into it more and am realizing now that our gov't has been hijacked by a very evil minded group of people who are hellbent on a New World Order.

I wish I could ignore all of the evidence and just bury my head in the sand like the debunkers do but I just can't. I suppose I am just too intelligent. Damn my logical brain!!!!

reply to


I only know what I have seen with my own eyes. I saw the owner of those buildings on live T.V. say that he made the decision to pull building #7. That would have been impossible without months of planning and prearation. You cannot just "pull" a building the same afternoon that you deide to do so.
Not only that but the official version that our corrupt gov't wants you to believe is that it fell due to structural failure caused by the damage it recieved due to the other towers falling.lol.

I only know what I see and hear for myself.
Damn my lyin eyes. GD damn my lyin' ears.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by cbass]

reply to post by cbass


No, what you saw was a braggert trying to show that he was involved with some aspect of an event that threw his world for a loop.

The quote most commonly used....

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse

Note, he does not say HE made the decision, he is stating that the Fire Department had made the decision to not try and fight the fires

Originally posted by cbass
reply to

 

I only know what I have seen with my own eyes. I saw the owner of those buildings on live T.V. say that he made the decision to pull building #7. That would have been impossible without months of planning and prearation. You cannot just "pull" a building the same afternoon that you deide to do so.
Not only that but the official version that our corrupt gov't wants you to believe is that it fell due to structural failure caused by the damage it recieved due to the other towers falling.lol.

Did you ever think about : What motive would any nebulous "boogieman" have to destroy WTC 7? Wouldn't a shredder have surficed?

Have you ever asked yourself: How could any nebulous "boogieman" have known where the damage from the WTC towers would be? If any, and If there was damage from the collapsing towers could that render the [alleged] explosives inoperable?

Wouldn't that get them caught red-handed? Why would they risk being caught red-handed if they were so omnipotent in the first place? Does that make sense to you?

What if the fires caused the[alleged] explosives to go off early, or be rendered inoperable? How could anyone pre-determine where the fires or structural damage might be?

Have you ever asked yourself : Why wasn't there any distinct explosive sounds when WTC 7 fell? The familiar sequencial explosions that accompany a controlled demolition... Where were they? Did the nebulous "boogieman" use never before tested "hushaboom technology" to bring the tower down? Would it not be ludicrously risky to use untried methods in such an unpredictible situation?

Have you ever asked yourself: How could the logistics of such a demolition operation go unnoticed in one of the busiest sections of one of the busiest cities in the world? Full of uptight New Yorkers no less. Do you think if ONE person saw what was being put in their building they wouldn't be screaming from the mountain tops? Wouldn't that be kinda risky, trying to sneak all that stuff in there?

Do you think your geographical analogies could be any more hackeneyed?

Do you realize that acting FDNY Cheif Daniel Nigro made the decision to "pull" all fire fighting operations away from Building 7, due to it being a serious risk for collapse? Do you think that FDNY was "in" on the plot to destroy their city? Do you think FDNY has to get Siverstien's OK on what they do if a building is badly damaged and buring?

How logical are you again? Have you asked THESE questions while you were "just askin' questions?"

reply to post by cbass


fact: silversteens comments were taken out of context..
fact: the fires were worse than most think..
fact: the south side of wtc7 is not used in truther propoganda..

Silverstein's Quote: "I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." -Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander -Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified: "In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence... "They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

full interview here..

www.nytimes.com...

many more interviews and good objective (not cherry picked) pictures too, can be found here..

www.debunking911.com...

and yes its a debunking site.. but I have found no better arguments..~pccat

So,like I was saying, I only know what I see with my own eyes and here with my own ears.

With my eyes I saw Silversteen and with my ears I heard him say We made the decision to pull the building.

If anyone has evidence that he is a braggart or otherwise being untruthful I would like to see or hear it. I don't want to believe that my gov't is lying but I can only go off of what I see and hear with my own two eyes and ears. If there is evidence that this man was lying when he made that statement I sincerely would like to hear or see it.
Untill then I am taking him for his word. The problem is that his word doesn't match up. It would take months of prep work to pull a building.
Which when added up with all of the other inconsostancies of that day point to an obvious conclusion.

The fact of the matter is that the nut jobs that still believe the official story will not admit they are wrong even if the President comes on live tv and addresses the nation and admitts to everything. You will all say he was a clone or saying it for some higher good, perhaps being forced by aliens posed to take over the earth or whatever other nonsense stories you all are told and still believe.

BTW- As hard as this is to accept, Cinderella,PeterPan,Frosty the Snowman,and Santa Clause are all fictional. Not real. Santa was actually your parents all along. I am sure you can offer me evidence to the contrary and I would love to see that too. Maybe I will start a thread about it.lol.Cum on people...wake up.

Islamic radicalism/terrorism is real.

Nebulous "boogiemen" are more like what you profess not believing in .i.e. Santa claus, unicorns, ect.

Every single one of those "unspeakable truths" (except maybe the asbestos one) are nothing but hearsay! Nothing the 9-11 "truthers" (which has nothing to do with truth at all) have put forth as of yet has any basis in reality. It is, however, the work of the anti-American establishment. Now I know you are going to come back and tell me that I have to prove them to be false. So I'm going to tell you right now that you can't disprove or prove a negative.

That being said, I am sure there are things the government is being hush on for reasons of national security. But that simply does not mean that Bush, Cheney, Israel, nor the Easter Bunny had anything to do with 9-11. It was middle eastern males between the age of 18 and 40 who bowed down to mecca 5 times a day and decided to kill as many infidels as they could so they could redeem their coupon for their 72 virgins.

End of story!

This is a very emotional subject as well it should be. Many human beings lost their lives on that day. As fellow humans we empathize such tragedies.

Knowing this, our media, which is well researched and even better paid, uses this information to shape and sculpt how we perceive these incidents.

This makes most media an unreliable source. It's also difficult on these kinds of forums (ats) to 'tell' one another the truth as we all have our own filters.

If you have any questions or doubts in your mind about that day use logical critical thinking when seeking answers. You would probably be surprised at how many very well researched unbiased merely answer seeking books have been written on this subject.

Many of us in our rush to 'google' things forget about such abundant resource as the library. Granted a lot of us live in places where the library is an unsafe place, but that's a thread for another day.

I personally have sought out books written by the widows of 9/11. To me these people deserve the utmost respect and attention since 9/11 had the greatest personal impact on their lives.

Anyhow I just hope that you can set aside your feelings and emotions about the day long enough to make sure you are sweeping aside the media fog.

I was watching TV in NYC on 9/11/01 and CBS was transmitting from
the Empire State building I assume because the woman announcer
with Brian Gumbel said the North Tower had a fire and the video
showed the smoke from the tower.
Brian didn't say much.
Later there might have been two women anchors and the South
Tower exploded.
Subsequent videos have planes of some sort.

I don't know how I received CBS unless my antenna picked up stray
cable emissions or the normal broadcast was always the ESB.
That's about all I know about except the news was always saying
Osama said we were going to be attacked by our own devices.

I thought he had a fleet of propeller planes somewhere.
Even a regular net texter wondered what Osama was up to.
The county should have been on Osama alert.
Osama said it was going to happen so why is he innocent of 911?

Some one put lipstick on Osama and called it Afghanistan.
Put lipstick on yellow cake and called it IRAQ.

People are just affected by the human condition to err a lot.
To Err Is Human, To Forgive Divine

Anyway, I am so done with waisting my energy debating blind people who insist they can see. It is not ultimately my problem if you walk out into the street and get hit by a car. Have at it. I was not put here on this earth to convince you that you are blind. (LOL. Reminds me of that movie with Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder - Hear no evil See no evil.)

Back to the topic at hand. I find it very interesting that these buildings were denied demolition by the port authority and 6mos later they got taken down anyway. We all have to stand in awe at what a huge coincidence that surely is.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


Osama has never been officially charged by the dept of Justice because there isn't enough evidence. That's a fact. Even our own WhiteHouse came out and said the other day that he was not the mastermind behind 911. I'm sure the debunkers will come out and say that it was a conspiracy and that they only said that so he would drop his guard long enought for us to finally catch him. He and Santa Clause are probly figuring out a wat to sabatoge Christmas. I hope Santa's sleigh is a three seater so Jesus can come too.

Originally posted by cbass
When you look at all of the facts from an outside perspective, meaning,pretend you are from a completely different country and have no ties with America whatsoever. It becomes glaringly obvious that our gov't was involved in the events of September 11. It is only through your blind patriotism (redundant) that these criminals can get away with this.

This is why the rest of the world realizes it was a inside job. I dont think there is another country so blinded by patriotism as America. Its like you are still stuck in the 17:th century.

And they will get away with it too, because in the US, some people are above the law.

I made a nice index thread linking to parts of the excellent 9/11 Coincidences documentary before which takes up a lot of what is said in the OP's article: 9/11 Coincidences


[edit on 13-9-2008 by Copernicus]