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 muzzleflash
But "911 Truth" has not been discredited.
Show me the discrediting documentation.
I bet I can tear holes in it faster than you can say Swiss Cheese.
Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Well, he was talking about 911 truth in general and you immediately jumped to Ventura. That is tangential argument at best and seems more like a concession to his point.
Originally posted by beebs
He admits WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, and somehow tries to spin that as OK.
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.
The myth that Building 7 was blown up by the U.S. government is false – and so is the broader theory that our government was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. I know this because I was one of the few reporters who investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories and urban legends on location in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.
Originally posted by LifeInDeath
Does anybody here ever click links to read the source articles?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by muzzleflash
But "911 Truth" has not been discredited.
Show me the discrediting documentation.
I bet I can tear holes in it faster than you can say Swiss Cheese.
Jesse Ventura said in his "conspiracy theory" series that there was a military stand down order on 9/11. Ventura was lying. It specifically says in the 9/11 commission report that a flight of F-15s had been scrambled from Massachusetts and a flight of F-16s had been scrambled from Virginia to intercept the planes heading for NYC. The fighters had been seen on more than one news camera over NYC on 9/11 so we know they were up there. Besides, on 9/11 I was camping in Virginia near an air force base and I saw streams of C-130 transports pouring out of the base with my own eyes. It was a COMMERCIAL stand down on 9/11, and Ventura is falsely portraying it as a military stand down to deliberately get people all paranoid over shadows.
I invite your hole tearing at your best opportunity.
Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.
Originally posted by beebs
In an emergency like 9/11, how do you propose that the explosives needed for a controlled demolition were to be rigged?!
How could Silverstein be even considering the idea? It takes much more than a day to plan a controlled demolition.
Come on man, be an intelligent skeptic, not a knee jerk skeptic.
A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
"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."
Preface from Alex Jones: To truly grasp the magnitude of this story, you really have to read the entire article. Immediately after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan to conduct a controlled demolition of the building. Now the fact that officials were considering blowing up the building is established, Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge smoking gun. How did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place? This new revelation is astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately.
Originally posted by Leo Strauss
He said "minimized the damage caused by the buildings imminent collapse..."
To me that sounds as though he intends to demo the building before it collapses???...which is imminent. In fact if this is true it makes Lucky Larry's statement on PBS completely understandable.
Originally posted by beebs
How come no other, nearer buildings, with much much more damage due to towers 1 and 2, collapsed also that day? Why just WTC 7?
I am sorry we disagree on the importance of this Fox article, and 9/11 truth. 9/11 truth to me is perhaps the most important issue to focus on to END WARS and killing.
edit to add: And for WTC 7 to come down at near freefall speed, each and every girder joint holding up every floor had to have been severed, otherwise there should have been a skeleton of steel still standing. Just use your minds eye to imagine precisely HOW the building could have come down so perfectly. I don't know... it sucks but I'm pretty sure I'm not crazy, and Jesse isn't crazy. Don't get me wrong, he looks crazy, but a former governor and a former soldier must know at least something. Oh yeah, don't forget he was a demolitions expert as a seal if I'm not mistaken.
Originally posted by LifeInDeath
I've seen just as much analysis of the alleged "near freefall speed" charges to show that it came down considerably slower than that.