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.

 

Sun Jan 10th: Richard Gage vs. Ron Craig

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48


Dave , my memory is old, so help me out.

Who ran the security for the WTC buildings.



So are your Conspiracy Theories.

Securacom (later Stratesec) handled some of it. As did the Port Authority. A little information you may or may not have known:


Marvin Bush was reelected annually to Securacom's board of directors from 1993 through 1999. His final reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000. Throughout, he also served on the company's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee, and his stock holdings grew during the period. Directors had options to purchase 25,000 shares of stock annually. In 1996, Bush acquired 53,000 shares at 52 cents per share. Shares in the 1997 IPO sold at $8.50. Records since 2000 no longer list Bush as a shareholder.

www.physics911.ca...:_Security,_Secrecy,_and_a_Bush_Brother

ouch




posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


And now for : The Rest of The Story

Pepper , you forgot a bit , I'm sure it was a honest mistake

whatreallyhappened.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
The Port Authority itself was basically recreated by David and Nelson Rockefeller when the WTC site was cut out and construction began.

The PA was already investigating ways in which the buildings could be sabotaged in the early 1980s, suggesting they were going to use the knowledge to prevent terror attacks. They called in the buildings' engineers as well as various sabotage and demolition experts. One of the recruited team members said the basement was totally vulnerable to attack. Instead of fixing that, you get the subsequent 1993 bombing in which the FBI admitting to being involved with, working with the suspected terrorist cell up to the actual bombing. They also discussed planes hitting the towers and Les Robertson said there was "little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked."


The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks (see Early 1984), spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability. According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton, when Edward O’Sullivan, head of the OSP, looks at WTC security, he finds “one vulnerability after another. Explosive charges could be placed at key locations in the power system. Chemical or biological agents could be dropped into the coolant system. The Hudson River water intake could be blown up. Someone might even try to infiltrate the large and vulnerable subterranean realms of the World Trade Center site.” In particular, “There was no control at all over access to the underground, two-thousand-car parking garage.” However, O’Sullivan consults “one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.” He is told there is “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.” [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004] The OSP will issue its report called “Counter-Terrorism Perspectives: The World Trade Center” late in 1985 (see November 1985).


www.historycommons.org...


I made a thread about it here: Port Authority's OSP Unit assesses WTC Towers for attack, 1984


The PA is far from being the most transparent organization anyway. It was intentionally set up by the Rockefeller brothers to be separate from both NY and NJ, so that a joint committee between the two states would have to be created, and joint legislation would have to be required, to provide any oversight at all for the PA. Its buildings are also not subject to either NY or NJ state codes and who knows what went on during construction or who would have been there inspecting it, or on behalf of what authority.


NY & NJ Announce Comprehensive Public Authority Reform Package
Identical Legislation Specific to Reform and Oversight of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to be Introduced
November 8, 2006

NYS Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky (D-Westchester), Chair of the Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions today released a comprehensive legislative package to reform public authorities that will be jointly introduced with the New Jersey Legislature by Senator Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) and Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D-Parlin). The package consists of two broad bills, one that focuses solely on the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (“PANY/NJ”) which requires passage in both states, and a second that expands New York’s Public Authority and Accountability Act of 2005.

“For far too long public authorities have operated behind closed doors without any real oversight or accountability, and the result has been a systemic pattern of corruption and mismanagement. We enacted major reforms of New York’s public authorities in 2005, but the reforms need to go further and we must extend oversight to the Port Authority. This legislative package will make sure that these Soviet-style bureaucracies finally work in the interest of the people of this State,” said Assemblyman Brodsky.


assembly.state.ny.us...



So on one hand for WTC security you have this Port Authority that has been set up to be non-transparent since the beginning, and on the other hand you have the company formerly known as Securacom which was involved in a number of serious and infamous security breaches already and also happens to be tied somehow to the Bush family (surprise).

The reason people find it interesting that a member of the Bush family was on this company's board of directors, is because wealthy, powerful people like to get together and brainstorm ways to get more powerful and wealthier. That's why there are groups like the Bilderbergers and the Council on Foreign Relations (of which David Rockefeller is also a senior member). I can't imagine how naive someone would have to be to see the conflict of interest when a family that made its money off of oil and financing the Nazis during WW2 (the Bush family), that also has ties to the Rockefeller family (another extremely powerful and wealthy family and highly involved in foreign politics), has someone then involved with security for the WTC Towers. What are the connections here again? The Rockefellers also commissioned and financed the entire WTC project and the subsequent wars resulting from 9/11 coincided with record-breaking profits from oil companies. And to re-iterate, the Bushes already had relations with both the Rockefeller family and the oil industry before any of this.

But you're not going to think about any of that anyway, because you don't WANT to. The only thing that's on your mind right now is what you can say in your next post to best underhand anything I've posted here.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Nice find, and read

ty sir

I read the entire page , lots of comments by lettered people.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48


Pepper , you forgot a bit , I'm sure it was a honest mistake



No, I wanted to limit your embarrassment. Go to your link again and read it. Then re-read my post.

Marvin Bush has not been a share holder since the year 2000.

If you want to rekindle the 2006 debunked CT's (power downs, bomb sniffing dogs, etc....be my guest)



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
If you want to rekindle the 2006 debunked CT's (power downs, bomb sniffing dogs, etc....be my guest)


Who debunked the claim that there were ever power downs? I'd love to see how you proved that negative. Maybe you really mean you just have a bunch of slandering up your sleeve for the Forbes guy? That's a big difference, you know.

Bomb sniffing dogs, similar. We know a certain number of them were removed from the buildings for a certain period of time shortly before the attacks, in what was apparently an odd enough occurrence to warrant the media reporting it. There is nothing to debunk about that.


You really need to take some time off and learn what a logical fallacy is, and what real logic is, and how to apply them to all facets of information. You get so tripped up over your own nonsense that you get off of all these "debunker" websites and JREF that you don't even realize it anymore when you utterly fail to demonstrate anything conclusive. All the explosions people heard is another good example. You probably erroneously believe you have "debunked" those explosions too even though there is absolutely no proof of electrical generators or anything else exploding, except intentionally-placed devices, which was reported numerous times. Just because you THINK that you have an EXCUSE for something, doesn't actually prove a damned thing, and that's why you have to keep coming here to argue with us, like you still have something to prove. Because you really do.



Btw if you really do want to talk about "old conspiracy theories," that is a great place to start.

Prove where all of those explosions were coming from, and what was causing them.

Gee, getting that out of the way will really clear up a lot of these CTs, huh?


[edit on 10-1-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Who debunked the claim that there were ever power downs? I'd love to see how you proved that negative. Maybe you really mean you just have a bunch of slandering up your sleeve for the Forbes guy? That's a big difference, you know.


Slander the Forbes guy? Nah. No need to.
Can I prove that there wasn't? Well, like you said. I'd be proving a negative. The thing is, he offers ZERO proof of a power down. How many hundreds (thousands)of employees worked in the floors where he makes this claim? How many have corroborated his story?

His claim is that there was a power down from the 50th floor up.


“there was no electrical supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up”,
- Scott Forbes

Don't you think this would make some sort of news 60 floors of a World Trade Center Tower in the dark? For how long?

How about the interview he gave at the Geroge Washington blog?


I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...

georgewashington.blogspot.com...

(Please note that in this interview he claims the power down was only 26 hours)

When was the power down Mr. Forbes?


"approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001”


Hmmm..the power down had ZERO effect on the observation deck...seems business was routine that day:


I had an interesting email sent to me today, showing scans of the ticket stubs for the top of the World Trade Center dated September 8, 2001. A friend of a friend was up there just 3 days earlier.

www.roundededge.com...

(please follow the above link for a scanned copy of the ticket stub. You will see that the date is September 8th and it was printed at 1:40 in the afternoon.)

This "power down" was for a cable upgrade. What type of cable upgrade? Why would the power need to be down for this long. I know a thing or two about electricity. I can tell you, the project to tie over new cabling would NOT take 36 hours. The new conduit and conductors would be run prior to any shut down. This is a building that is open 24/7 with world wide trading always going on. How many banks were in those upper floors? Fuji, First Commercial...just to name two. Does anyone REALLY think these banks would not have any security?

No power downs at the other two collapsed towers either. Hmmm?

9-11 Review.com a truther site even claims:


UNLIKELY: 'The South Tower Was Powered Down Before the Attack'

911review.com...

Sorry, BsBray. If you really believe there was a power down AND you thinkn this time was used to install explosives, therm*te, nukes, whatever; I have a bridge for sale. U2U me for details.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Can I prove that there wasn't? Well, like you said. I'd be proving a negative. The thing is, he offers ZERO proof of a power down. How many hundreds (thousands)of employees worked in the floors where he makes this claim? How many have corroborated his story?


I have seen enough to know that the MSM doesn't cover a lot of stories that you would otherwise expect to see on TV. Even local media doesn't cover a lot of things they could. So "wouldn't this be on TV?" or "wouldn't more people have 'said something'?" are nice rhetorical questions, but their positive suggestions, ie "if no one else says it and if it isn't on TV then it isn't true," is a logical fallacy.



You completely ignored the only challenge I made to you in my last post.

Go figure, right McLovin?


Btw if you really do want to talk about "old conspiracy theories," that is a great place to start.

Prove where all of those explosions were coming from, and what was causing them.

Gee, getting that out of the way will really clear up a lot of these CTs, huh?



Still looking forward to this doosie.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Bomb sniffing dogs, similar. We know a certain number of them were removed from the buildings for a certain period of time shortly before the attacks, in what was apparently an odd enough occurrence to warrant the media reporting it. There is nothing to debunk about that.


The extra dogs were removed. Come on BsBray. You know this. There were extra dogs brought in because of bomb scares that were called in. You do know that Sirius was on duty and died when the tower collapsed?



"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."


-Daria Coard Guard from Tower 1.
www.newsday.com...


Can I prove what the explosions were? Absolutely not. We can both only speculate. If you actually think for a change, you would realize the complexity involved (as we have discussed in the past) in planting bombs throughout 3 skyscrapers.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I have seen enough to know that the MSM doesn't cover a lot of stories that you would otherwise expect to see on TV. Even local media doesn't cover a lot of things they could. So "wouldn't this be on TV?" or "wouldn't more people have 'said something'?" are nice rhetorical questions, but their positive suggestions, ie "if no one else says it and if it isn't on TV then it isn't true," is a logical fallacy.


Please address the several other points made regarding the alleged power down.



You completely ignored the only challenge I made to you in my last post.


Sorry, we crossed posts.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Please address the several other points made regarding the alleged power down.


You already admitted there is no way to disprove there being a power down. I don't personally believe Forbes' story is 100% accurate anyway. He says "approximately" 36 hours for floors 50 and above yet it would make infinitely more sense and save much more money for tenants to stagger the operation and do it in segments. Others have testified that construction at the WTC was mundane and ongoing all the time in one place or another.



Originally posted by ImAPepper
Can I prove what the explosions were? Absolutely not. We can both only speculate. If you actually think for a change, you would realize the complexity involved (as we have discussed in the past) in planting bombs throughout 3 skyscrapers.


I have yet to see such alleged complexity, to the point of being physically impossible, demonstrated with logic.

Can you prove what the explosions were? Absolutely not? And that doesn't bother you in the least, because you are such a genius you KNOW they weren't explosive devices anyway somehow?



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


You already admitted there is no way to disprove there being a power down. I don't personally believe Forbes' story is 100% accurate anyway. He says "approximately" 36 hours for floors 50 and above yet it would make infinitely more sense and save much more money for tenants to stagger the operation and do it in segments. Others have testified that construction at the WTC was mundane and ongoing all the time in one place or another.



The type of construction is typically just a "soft goods" type of job. Wallpaper, carpeting, etc. No too much in the way of structural changes. (Fuji Bank actually installed a UPS system that required special requests and permits due to the weight of the system.)





Can you prove what the explosions were? Absolutely not? And that doesn't bother you in the least, because you are such a genius you KNOW they weren't explosive devices anyway somehow?


No, it doesn't bother me. There are so many more explanations as to what they were. It only bothers you because you need the conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Well , I listened to the debate, wasn't good for Craig (OS)

He keep referring to conventional methods of Controlled Demolition, which

nobody is saying was used.

He flat out said "there was no MOLTEN STEEL" at the bottom of the debris

piles. He had too, he could not justify it being there, for that lenght of time.

Was good for the Truth movement for sure.

The OS needs more help, Maybe they can bring back, Bill Nye the

science guy. (really had to fight using emoticons )



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
The type of construction is typically just a "soft goods" type of job. Wallpaper, carpeting, etc. No too much in the way of structural changes. (Fuji Bank actually installed a UPS system that required special requests and permits due to the weight of the system.)


Just because you have clearance only for that kind of work doesn't mean it's all that can practically be accomplished, especially when we have no way of knowing what was actually installed and where.




Can you prove what the explosions were? Absolutely not? And that doesn't bother you in the least, because you are such a genius you KNOW they weren't explosive devices anyway somehow?


No, it doesn't bother me. There are so many more explanations as to what they were. It only bothers you because you need the conspiracy.


I don't "need" a conspiracy. I can see where there are blatant information gaps (like "what was causing all of those explosions?") right where there would be if a cover-up really were underway. 9 years and supposedly all this papers and we know so much about them yet we can't tell you what was causing all of these destructive explosions where these people were talking about, and you just assume they had nothing to do with anything.

Just to demonstrate the precedent for this kind of suspicious behavior. There were 2 unexploded bombs removed from inside the Murrah Federal Building after the OKC bombing too, and FEMA and the DoD, among others, including civilians, documented this in memos and legal affidavits. That was more like 15 years ago and still there's been no explanation or investigation into those bombs being there, either.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48

Well , I listened to the debate, wasn't good for Craig (OS)
He keep referring to conventional methods of Controlled Demolition, which
nobody is saying was used.


Then you've got a problem, becuase if they didn't (in your own words) "follow the conventional methods of controlled demolitions" then they weren't controlled demolitions. What it actually is, I couldn't tell you, becuase the truthers have ZERO tangible proof that there were ever actually any demolitions being used to begin with. All they have is "witnesses heard explosions", which isn't even proof of anything anyway- it's innuendo.

As many people already pointed out already here, there are many more non-conspiracy explanations for something making a big BANG than there are conspriacy reasons, particularly when they're heard immediately after a plane just crashed into a building.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48




He flat out said "there was no MOLTEN STEEL" at the bottom of the debris

piles. He had too, he could not justify it being there, for that lenght of time.

Was good for the Truth movement for sure.



Dave .

If your gonna debate us, then perhaps you should debate what we ARE

saying .

Craig was talking about conventional CD, We say in was Thermite.

He also said there was no Molten Metal , do you agree with this statemant??



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48
Dave .

If your gonna debate us, then perhaps you should debate what we ARE

saying .

Craig was talking about conventional CD, We say in was Thermite.


Where, on any controlled demolition job on the planet, has thermite ever been used? Thermite doesn't explode, it just burns really hot, so it couldn't have explained the explosions you're atribiting it to. Besides, if there really was thermite, there'd be blatant signs of it on all the steel, and all you need to do is look at the photos of ground ero to see there was none.

You know as well as I do that you're just making stuff up as you go along and you don't care that it makes no sense whatsoever. This is becuase you don't care what the "secret conspiracy" actually is, as long as there is a conspiracy, somewhere.


He also said there was no Molten Metal , do you agree with this statemant??


In truth, I don't know, becuase the "molten metal" in question would have been the steel buried underground and exposed to the underground fires for months. What effect the concentrated heat would have had for such a length of time, I can't say.

It also depends on what you're arguing about. Yeah, there are photos of steel being pulled out of the ground that were glowing white hot and softened, but ido you consider this actually "molten"?



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
sorry for edit

was researching something and had to close reply

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Sean48]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join