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.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by evergreenvt
Let's take the facts as you allege and, for once, look at the practical aspects. How many people, working full time, for at least six months, were involved in the conspiracy to weaken and demolish the World Trade Center complex? 500? 1,000? 2,000?
I think you're confusing me with someone else, since I fully acknowledge how absurd the idea of "secretly planted controlled demolitions" are. The reason why is simple:
Taking an educated guess that it would take an hour to rig up a single column with demolitions AND prime them AND link them together AND hide them so noone would notice them, that works out to be one hour per column times 49 columns per floor times 110 floors times two towers works out to be over TEN THOUSAND man hours to complete. So, the number required to pull it off would be anywhere between over ten thousand people descended on the towers all at once, and one guy plodding along 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 14 months. If he did it only during the off-hours so that fewer people were around it would take OVER TWO YEARS.
I'm sorry, but there's just way too much disbelief we have to suspend in order to entertain the idea of controlled demolitions.
Originally posted by Solomons
The media is in the back pocket of the real people that run your country.
Originally posted by Nivcharah
I used to teach at a college. One of my students has a relative who worked in security at the World Trade Center. A week before 9/11, NONE of the security canines were on duty all day. NOT ONE!
Originally posted by Nivcharah
I used to teach at a college. One of my students has a relative who worked in security at the World Trade Center. A week before 9/11, NONE of the security canines were on duty all day. NOT ONE!
Originally posted by Nivcharah
I want to know, what do we DO to get these people out of office? What do we DO to protect our rights? What do we DO to kick ass and take back OUR country and reinstate OUR original U.S. Constitution?
Thank you.
The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
What he fails to know, understand or realize (whichever one applies) is that a week or two prior to 9/11, they had had EXTRA dogs on duty at the complex. It was the extra dogs that were removed. The dogs normally assigned to the WTC were on duty as usual.
Originally posted by Victoria 1
If 9/11 was a consperacy don't you know how many people would have had to cover everything up. There would be 100's and possibly 1,000's of people all keeping a secret. Don't you think that would have came out? Don't you think the media would jump on this, they hate Bush and would do anything to make him look bad.
In 1996, Jon Elliston wrote that the book is generally believed to be a hoax authored by one man, Leonard Lewin,[3] and the book was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "Most Successful Literary Hoax." Some claim that the book is genuine and has only been called a hoax in order to discredit it. Trans-Action devoted an issue to the debate over the book. Esquire magazine published a 28,000-word excerpt. (Kifner, 1999)
In the March 19 1972 edition of the New York Times Book Review, Lewin took credit for writing the book.
Consistent with the belief that the book is the result of a hoax, the idea for the Report came from Victor Navasky. In 1966, Navasky, then editor of the satiric Monocle magazine, read an article in the New York Times about a stock market downturn due to a "peace scare". This gave him an idea for a report that would get people thinking about a peacetime economy and the futility of the arms race. With these aims in mind, Lewin wrote the book.
Some who state that the book is authentic cite statements made by Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith in support of their claims.
On November 26, 1976, the report was reviewed in the book section of the Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, which was the pen name for Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith said that he knew firsthand of the report's authenticity because he had been invited to participate in it. Although he was unable to be part of the official group, he was consulted from time to time and had been asked to keep the project a secret. Furthermore, while he doubted the wisdom of letting the public know about the report, he agreed totally with its conclusions.
He wrote: 'As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservation relate only to the wisdom of releasing it to an obviously unconditioned public.'[4]
Six weeks later, in an Associated Press dispatch from London, Galbraith went even further and jokingly admitted that he was a member of the conspiracy. [5] The following day, Galbraith backed off. When asked about his 'conspiracy' statement, he replied: 'For the first time since Charles II The Times has been guilty of a misquotation... Nothing shakes my conviction that it was written by either Dean Rusk or Mrs. Clare Booth Luce. '[6]
The original reporter reported the following six days later: 'Misquoting seems to be a hazard to which Professor Galbraith is prone. The latest edition of the Cambridge newspaper Varsity quotes the following (tape recorded) interchange: 'Interviewer: 'Are you aware of the identity of the author of Report from Iron Mountain?' Galbraith: 'I was in general a member of the conspiracy, but I was not the author. I have always assumed that it was the man who wrote the foreword - Mr. Lewin[7]
Those who state that the book is really the report of a government panel state that on at least three occasions, Galbraith publicly endorsed the authenticity of the report, but denied that he wrote it.
What he fails to know, understand or realize (whichever one applies) is that a week or two prior to 9/11, they had had EXTRA dogs on duty at the complex. It was the extra dogs that were removed. The dogs normally assigned to the WTC were on duty as usual.
Originally posted by CUBD1
The premise of your entire argument requires the credulity of a conspiracy nut itself. 500? 1000? 2000?
Try 20. Try 30. At the most. Maybe even ten.
The rest of your argument is made laughable by the unbelieveable premise you've set forth.