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.

 

If you believe there was no fore knowledge how do you reconcile these facts.

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
...I know I am hoping or asking too much here...but when "you" the debunkers show up....take a new approach please....I ask that you don't pick and choose which point the OP made to debunk because the smoking gun does not exist in just one of the elements or situations but ALL of them combined.....so if you plan on shooting the OP down....have answers for every one of the claims.....did I make any sense?




I understand that the sum of the parts sometimes is greater than the individual pieces, but that is not always true. So, if a "debunker" or as I say "true-truther" comes here and says that these are a bunch of coincidences that should not be linked because they are not; I would have to take that as a form of argument that should be recognized. If you think that these events are all linked you have to show that link, not just insinuate that it exists




posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
You forgot the fact that in the weeks prior to 9/11 EVERY bomb-sniffing dog in the building was REMOVED. And whole floors were vacated for 'security reasons' and no one was allowed there during that time. Both obviously so that charges could be planted in order to bring down the buildings, since no airplane could possibly accomplish that task.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


The Hudson River at Indian Point is ringed with mountains, the river also
twists in several hairpin bends in the area - now explain how one flys
a 767 on the deck to strike the building. The contention has always
been that the hijackers couldn't fly a plane well enough to hit the
Pentagon, which is a massive building - onr of the biggest in the worls
It is in a open field with nothing for hundreds of yards around it. How does one fly a plane on the deck in such terrain?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by thedman
 


As a target Indian Point is much easier to hit than the buildings were, it really doesn't matter about the other stuff as you can see from this:



Are you seriously trying to tell us that two airliners slamming into this area wouldn't have a greater strategic effect than hitting the towers? At a minimum you knock the plant offline and cause a massive panic over the possibility of radioactive leakage. The chances of causing catastrophic failure are vastly higher here than at the WTC, from a preplanning point of view.
[edit on 17-1-2009 by apacheman]


Silverstein had a huge insurance policy on the towers.

See the dancing israeli's from my other post, connect the dots
and you have your answer.



[edit on 18-1-2009 by Ex_MislTech]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

In an ATS EXCLUSIVE

Dancing Israelis were guys who got in deep trouble with a company headquarted in the WTC. They were on their way to a 9 AM meeting knowing the evidence prepared was going to send them into bankruptcy.

Though it has been shown to have been made up by Muslim pseudo-reporting, Jews were not in the WTC when it was it because the time was 8:43 and the Jewish management personnel only arrive in their offices 9-10 AM.

But keep trying guys and examine that footage some more.


Mike F



If you would have watched the entire video you would see said
Israeli's on israeli TV admit they were sent there to doument the event.

Guess you skipped that part of the video, lol.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

"Then I see the Dancing Israelis....funny how the poster said they were in place to record the first tower, when in reality that nice, little old lady told 20/20 that the first tower had been hit before they showed up."

Watch the video again, you will see the israeli's admit on Israeli TV
they were sent their to document the event.

You must indeed have a vested interest in keeping the truth from
coming out, I wonder what that is ?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech

If you would have watched the entire video you would see said
Israeli's on israeli TV admit they were sent there to doument the event.

Guess you skipped that part of the video, lol.



Among other things

1) There are 1.5 Million Arab citizens of Israel who speak Hebrew fluently.
Do you know whether these people were Jews or Arabs?

2) It is very possible they were sent to document something mundane and boring in New York and by a stroke of fate got the story of a lifetime that would boost their careers. Can you prove that isn't what happened? People modify their stories to the media all the time for publicity?

3) do you really really think Israelis with pre-knowledge of 9/11 happening, an event in which thousands would die, would be so stupid as to dance in the street when it did? If they knews days before it was coming down, it was no surprise. If they'd been given this very high level intelligence information would they have blown their cover in front of thousands of people?

Have you actually thought about it instead of relying on predigested information from some video?

The contortions of logic and common sense people will go through to deny that Arab terrorist took control on planes and crashed them into the WTC
is mind boggling.

Someone should do a documentary on that as well.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by k-string
 


Wrong. The dogs that were normally assigned to the WTC were still there on 9/11. There had been extra dogs on site for a few weeks earlier due to a heightened security condition. It was the extra dogs that were removed.

In addition, NO floors were closed. Especially not the floors where the collapses initiated.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 


The insurance policy that he had on the Towers was the result of a compromise between him and his bankers. He originally wanted a much smaller policy, his bankers wanted a much larger one.




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


www.forbes.com...



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 


Hmmm...another veiled accusation. I have absolutely no problem with the truth coming out, however I see very little of it coming from the truther movement.

BTW he said he went to document the event.....as did how many other people with still and video cameras that day? Do you think ALL of them were in on it, or do you pounce on these guys simply because they are Jewish? Methinks you might have an issue with those of the Jewish race.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 


Silverstein had insurance on the WTC for the same reason you have
insurance on a house - BECAUSE THE BANKS LENDING THE MONEY
REQUIRE IT!

Silverstein actually was trying to BUY LESS INSURANCE than the lenders
wanted - only 1.5 billion on each building, lenders wanted 5 for each.
Compromised on 3.5 billion per building

So if Silverstein was running an insurance scam why did he want to buy
less insurance?




Larry Silverstein, president of Silverstein Properties, has said his actual losses on Sept. 11, 2001, amount to $8.2 billion, including $5.7 billion for the twin 110-story towers, retail property at the site and buildings 4 and 5, which were also destroyed



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
What you 'see' in a video isn't necessarily what they are claiming.
Just a snippet of news you can verify with by a search of Google and Youboob.

Sofia Shafquat created and narrated the film "9-11 Mysteries Part 1: Demolitions" with Brad Waddell. The film was based on a play that she and Brad performed in Los Angeles. The film is controversial because it credits Eric Hufschmid, a Holocaust Denier, as introducing "Brad" to 9/11 Denial.

Rick Siegel, had recorded raw footage of 9/11. He has shown how "9/11 Mysteries" altered his original footage to show things that weren't there without his consent. He is suing the producers for using his footage in what he says is disinformation.

There is a growing sub-industry of selling recorded pseudo-facts for $19.95.
A lot of impressionable buy into it. I'm told by a distributor Muslims and students are a large part of the demographics.

There is a whole Wiki for people interested in finding how truthful the Truthers really are.

skepticwiki.org...


Mike F



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Regarding the 'war games,' I never made the connection before (for which I am suitably humbled)-but as I recall, October is the financial new year for the government. I recall many times in the military having to use up our allocations by the end of the year lest they be reduced for the following year. To me, this would explain -a lot- of games and exercises going on, especially 'full-scale' ones (where people actually deploy) rather than simulations.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
And none of the truthers have anything to say about the insurance, the dogs, the Israelis or the put options??? I wonder why that is.....

I mean, they seemed shot in the butt with themselves when they posted those items in this thread. You would think they would try to come up with SOMETHING to rebut the explanations.......I know its hard for them to keep up their fairy tales when the truth is posted but sheesh..I expected something......



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And none of the truthers have anything to say about the insurance, the dogs, the Israelis or the put options??? I wonder why that is.....

I mean, they seemed shot in the butt with themselves when they posted those items in this thread. You would think they would try to come up with SOMETHING to rebut the explanations.......I know its hard for them to keep up their fairy tales when the truth is posted but sheesh..I expected something......




This Loose Change level Truther pseudo-information has had so many holes punched through it so many times no one wants to bother retyping it for the 100th person bring it up.


Check here for the rebuttals done by informed people who do actual research not just throw around unfounded speculation and rumours.

www.debunking911.com...



MF



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by lostbug
Just a reminder that random things do happen, the FEMA repositioning probably wasn't due to foreknowledge. Back in the dark ages (1989) there was a plane crash in Sioux City, Iowa where there happened to be a rapid response team doing drills. Wikipedia article about the crash


The incident occurred when the Iowa Air National Guard was on duty at Sioux Gateway Airport, allowing for 285 trained personnel to assist with triage and evacuation of the injured.


No one that I'm aware of has said that this was due to foreknowledge of the crash.


LostBug, to me at least there is absolutely no comparison between the SC crash and the fact that FEMA was deployed to the scene of a terrorist attack turned huge emergency situation.

The SC Crash has been proven to be a accident, their fan blade cracked from major stresses over years and years(if I remember correctly there might have even been a defect deep in the metal of that fan blade). No one could predict where the f232 would go down that day.

The WTC attacks on the other hand were pre picked at least a year or more in advance. FEMA agents were ready to deploy instantly as soon as the attacks happened.

You might want to look at 9/11 another way, for me it seems like everything possible was done to minimize death and injury.

1.All of these jumbo jets are basically empty(so much that even the commision felt compelled to look into and explain this).

2. The towers collapse after they have basically been emptied(with everyone who was going to get out at least), FEMA already has hundereds of people there ready for thousands of injuries(due to their drilled bio attack).

3. The pentagon is hit with the jumbo sliding under the second floor of a section of the building designed to take a truck bomb blast and that was still empty(literally thousands of people would have been injured if that section had not been emptied due to the ending construction or if they would have crashed into the top of the building lengthwise(which would of been a easier attack)).

4. F93 crashes in a field.

Yes, I know its all speculation at best especially with the minimizing of injuries but its very hard to explain away the facts that seem to point to foreknowledge. Do you really believe that our intelligent agencies and government did not have a single clue that this was coming down the pipeline.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Putting dogs or no dogs, bombs or not, insurance of how much etc etc all a side. All I want to know how a building can fall at the speed of gravity? I work with steel day in day out i Know steel does not behave the way it did!! Plane hit one side of the building, big fire steel start to expand on that side not on other side! It might be hot but not same temperature as the side where the planes hit so the building must lean to one side and not fall in its on foodstep? Am I beng a bit thick here?



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by apacheman
 


The Hudson River at Indian Point is ringed with mountains, the river also
twists in several hairpin bends in the area - now explain how one flys
a 767 on the deck to strike the building. The contention has always
been that the hijackers couldn't fly a plane well enough to hit the
Pentagon, which is a massive building - onr of the biggest in the worls
It is in a open field with nothing for hundreds of yards around it. How does one fly a plane on the deck in such terrain?


To start with the last first:

There's no need to "fly on the deck"...with such a target the attack profile would be a simple dive onto the facility. In a dive attack, the hills don't matter much, so that isn't a factor. The target itself is relatively huge and difficult to miss; as a practical matter, it's vastly easier to hit than a single building, large as it was. If you think about it the building was no more than twice or perhaps three times as wide as the aircraft's wingspan, whereas the nuclear plant is easily twice as large a target. Remember, you don't need to actually break through the domes to shut down the plant for months and to cause immediate panic on an order several times what was actually experienced due to the potential of radiation leakage and meltdown.

And the river is simply immaterial: what bearing could it possibly have had? Against and infantry attack it might make a difference, but not from the air.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
The orifinal attack plans, now well documented with information from the very planners themselves, was 10 targets. This was cut back to the 4 that we saw, to keep the risk down.

The Twin Towers in New York, the highest man made structures in the world, and iconic of American economic domination, were the prime goals. Particularly in the same week of the Jewish New Year.

The White House and Pentagon were the next choices.

In seve years thousands of non-partisan researchers have been able to show how those towers succumbed to essentiall giant bombs hitting them at high speed.

Those trying to prove it was a US planned self destruction equal to shooting off one's foot, still pick away at inconsistencies in the initial reporting, questionable often later altered footage, and an array of wonky unfounded scientific data.

Though there is an overwhelming assembly of verifiable information and witnessing of 19 Arabs, 15 from Saudi Arabia, willfully crashing planes into these national monuments, thousands choose to deny it. The wild goose chase for alternative theories has become a sub-industry.


MF



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Another fact that even the Commission looked into but as with everything else they looked into they blessed this subject with "no problem here" attitude which is the fact of all of the cross country flights being twenty percent full.

It turns out that after looking into this the Commission says that Tuesday not only happens to be the least flown day but that those early morning flights were filled with exactly as many people as were supposed to be there.

I have no doubts that this is the case but the question that they over look is how exactly was this known by the hijackers. The more you look into it the more it becomes apparent that this attack was done with military precision and that everything went there ways that day. The ONLY thing that went wrong which was no fault of the hijackers was the fact that f93 ran into taxi traffic and was delayed for forty minutes if not for this they would have made it to there target, even not making it to there target they succeeded b/c they still managed to kill all of the passengers on their jet.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join