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.

 

who still believes 911 was an inside job?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Seems as though the young Aussie as gotten over his head.

I think it's cute that your curiosity has gotten the better of you and you've decided to research 9/11. How admirable...and look you've discovered information that has already been found by every Tom, Dick and Harry on the planet, not to mention deciphered, decoded and discussed to oblivion.

But you've found the truth, how brave and bold.

Sweet, now I can rest easy knowing that my fellow squad members didn't die for nothing.

Thanks,




posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by misskush
reply to post by rival
 


Going through your list I find myself aware of most of your points, but #9 is proving elusive ... Care to tell me about the Silverstein comment? I am intrigued.



Silverstein owned the WTC complex. He is seen here in this video
making his infamous Fruedian slip/comment about building seven.
The term "pull it" has been verified as demolition terminology for
initiating the implosion of a building. Silverstein later clarifies his
statement (when questioned) and states that he meant/or should have
said "...pull everyone out of the building." The building had been
evacuated of all civilian personnel already. So was this a
Fruedian slip or innocent misspeak?...You decide.

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 6-7-2010 by rival]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by misskush
 


He is referring to this comment. Keep in mind, it takes DAYS to rig a building with explosives to "pull it"...




posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I think the title should be renamed to "who still believes 911 wasnt an inside job?"

You are entitled to our opinion and i respect that, but you are going to have to come up with more than 2 Wikipedia sources to convince me of your opinion. BTW i just finished my 3rd college English class which was "advanced composition" and in all my college courses Wikipedia is not considered a credible source.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Its proven to be an inside job, and am sitting with the documents from 1951 were building EU(European Union),Nwo(new world order,see the great speech from tony blair ect on youtube).
And that the entire 9 years has been done perfectly by the plan. So for me you are just seeming ignorant,wich is a fact. Ignorant=Not informed.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Not calling out names but wasn't GW Bushs other brother Marvin P. Bush on the board of security for the WTC.
www.sourcewatch.org...
To many links to a bush and in my opinion yea it was an inside job.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by misskush
 


He is referring to this comment. Keep in mind, it takes DAYS to rig a building with explosives to "pull it"...


Apparently, (to me) rigging takes twelve hours, overnight, on a weekend prior
to "pulling it." And the best excuse to use (for the secret rigging) is doing
electrical/telephone maintenance. 'Course I'm not a demolition expert...



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 

If you look at the map, you will see WHY WTC7 had to be rigged with explosives. They wanted all of them to be destroyed, and WTC 7 is just a bit TOO far away.

www.prisonplanet.com...

Funny that the others just simply burned like any other building in history has done, without imploding.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a silly OP.
this is a conspiracy site. most of the posters here will tell you it was at least LIHOP, and probably MIHOP.
silly.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by pablos
 


To continue playing Devil's Advocate:

(note: though I believe there is more to this story than meets the eye, I do not think that the Bush administration helped plan the attack)


What I make of the relationship between the Bush and the bin Laden families is they are and were business partners.

Which does not mean much for Osama, he has been disowned essentially by his family, that is why he did not base all his shenanigans in Saudi Arabia.


Well, the business partner was Salem Bin Laden, who was in direct contact with Osama during the funding of the Mujaheddin against the Soviets in the late 70s and early 80s. Salem and several other important figures in Bush's oil adventures were all linked to the BCCI Bank, which laundered money for the CIA during their covert anti-Soviet actions. One such character was Khalid bin Mahfouz, who has been accused of funding al-Qaeda. Does this not beg the question, is there more here than what we see?

Furthermore, if all the Bin Ladens disown him, then why did two unnamed relatives sit on the board of the Al-Taqwa Bank, a known al-Qaeda money-mover?



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
Silverstein owned the WTC complex. He is seen here in this video
making his infamous Fruedian slip/comment about building seven.
The term "pull it" has been verified as demolition terminology for
initiating the implosion of a building. Silverstein later clarifies his
statement (when questioned) and states that he meant/or should have
said "...pull everyone out of the building." The building had been
evacuated of all civilian personnel already. So was this a
Fruedian slip or innocent misspeak?...You decide.

www.youtube.com...


Thank ya sir, quite an interesting video. Surprised I never stumbled upon it. He commits a rather extreme grammatical error if he really did mean "pull people out". And he repeats it twice.

My vote goes to Freud. (and explosives)



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
ok im back, was playing assassins creed....soz



Originally posted by Someone336
While I don't necessarily believe that the government planned 9/11, let me play devil's advocate: what do you make of the numerous ties between the Bin Laden family and the Bushes, not to mention the relationship between Bin Laden, Middle Eastern terrorist groups, and the US intelligence community? Or the statements made by Ahmed Huber, a banker with numerous terrorist ties, including directly to the Bins Ladens, that 9/11 was a joint operation by al-Qaeda and far-right elements in America in order to cause a 'right-wing revolution' in America?


wait wait what?

Hang on lets stay in reality. Joint al-Qaeda american operation? Remember the Bin Laden family disowned him in 1994.

en.wikipedia.org...

Look guys if you think the family had anything to do with his own personal religious radicalism then you have no idea what you are talking about - period. For those that would say or think that i haven't done enough research in this thread then let me surprise you


Im gona put 100 bucks down that no one who believes 911 was an inside job knows the name 'Steve Coll.’



Steve Coll - The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century


The bin Ladens are famous for spawning the world's foremost terrorist and building one of the Middle East's foremost corporate dynasties. Pulitzer Prize–winner Coll (Ghost Wars) delivers a sprawling history of the multifaceted clan, paying special attention to its two most emblematic members. Patriarch Mohamed's eldest son, Salem, was a caricature of the self-indulgent plutocrat: a flamboyant jet-setter dependent on the Saudi monarchy, obsessed with all things motorized (he died crashing his plane after a day's joy-riding atop motorcycle and dune-buggy) and forever tormenting his entourage with off-key karaoke.

Coll presents quite a contrast with an unusually nuanced profile of Salem's half-brother Osama, a shy, austere, devout man who nonetheless shares Salem's egomania. Other bin Ladens crowd Coll's narrative with the eye-glazing details of their murky business deals, messy divorces and ill-advised perfume lines and pop CDs. Beneath the clutter one discerns an engrossing portrait of a family torn between tradition and modernity, conformism and self-actualization, and desperately in search of its soul.


academicearth.org...










posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Does anyone get annoyed by the acronyms MIHOP and LIHOP?

I mean, within the context of the phrase, how do you make something or let something happen not on purpose?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


Sorry, I'll let someone else take them point-by-point to another thread, but in your post I'm referring, ALL of those points you've cited are bogus claims --- that all propagate at some point form the myriad "conspiracy" websites that proliferate on (I say 'infest') the Internet.

Remember, MOST of those disgusting individuals who perpetuate those myths, and falsehoods, do it for profit...they are all hoping to cash in on this tragedy, by keeping the "debates" going, and keeping the field ripe for their ultimate books-yet-to-be-written. OR, they just make cheaply-produced crap DVDs, and market them direct-to-buyer online.

Your list of 10 (and the vague reference to "11-50"?) are merely parrotting from those "conspiracy" websites.

What has grown into a cottage industry (so-called "9/11 Truth") arose from the incredibly arcane, and desperate "linkages" that some have made --- "linking" very, very separate and disparate events and trying to form (and thinking they have perceived) a "pattern". It is a compilation of numerous contributions, as this 'ground-swell-so-called-movement' grew, and took on a life of its own....a multi-headed Gorgon of filfth, misleading statements, outright lies, and completely misunderstood science.

It is also quite typical of the pop-psychology of such "movements", especially in the modern age of nearly instant communication and accessibility. Added is the psychological component of hubris, and meglamaniacal delusions of grandeur --- being "in the know", and feeling superior to the mere "peons" who can't "see the light"...sad, really.

AND, very, very out-of-context statements that are manipulated for the purposes of deception...BY these so-called "Truth" seekers!!




[edit on 7 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by rival
Silverstein owned the WTC complex. He is seen here in this video
making his infamous Fruedian slip/comment about building seven.
The term "pull it" has been verified as demolition terminology for
initiating the implosion of a building. Silverstein later clarifies his
statement (when questioned) and states that he meant/or should have
said "...pull everyone out of the building." The building had been
evacuated of all civilian personnel already. So was this a
Fruedian slip or innocent misspeak?...You decide.


If you're going to go that route then you need to listen to the whole quote, not just those one or two sexy sounding bits that catch your attention. He's not saying that HE made the desicion to "pull it". He's saying the New York Fire Department made the decision to "pull it". So according to you, the NYFD is involved in a conspiracy to secretly plant explosives in a bunch of skyscrapers and kill off 3000+ people (including 343 of their fellow firefighters), and the subsequent coverup. Don't even go there. This is paranoia solely for paranoia's sake.

The term "pull it" is firefighter lingo meaning to extract firefighters out of a dangerous area. It comes from the days before radio, where they'd give the fire hose a good sharp pull to signal the firefighters at the other end of the hose to get out. I've confirmed this with TWO firefighters, so I'd believe them over those damned fool conspiracy web sites you're getting this drivel from, if I were you. Remember, Silverstein was talking to firefighters, NOT demolitions experts, when this term came up.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
9/11 is the day of the most and most astonishing "coincidences" If someone looks at all of it he/she must be pretty dillusional and in Die-Hard denial if he/she steps forward to defend the official story.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by rival
 


Sorry, I'll let someone else take them point-by-point to another thread, but in your post I'm referring, ALL of those points you've cited are bogus claims --- that all propagate at some point form the myriad "conspiracy" websites that proliferate on (I say 'infest') the Internet.

Remember, MOST of those disgusting individuals who perpetuate those myths, and falsehoods, do it for profit...they are all hoping to cash in on this tragedy, by keeping the "debates" going, and keeping the field ripe for their ultimate books-yet-to-be-written. OR, they just make cheaply-produced crap DVDs, and market them direct-to-buyer online.

Your list of 10 (and the vague reference to "11-50"?) are merely parrotting from those "conspiracy" websites.

What has grown into a cottage industry (so-called "9/11 Truth") arose from the incredibly arcane, and desperate "linkages" that some have made --- "linking" very, very separate and disparate events and trying to form (and thinking they have perceived) a "pattern". It is a compilation of numerous contributions, as this 'ground-swell-so-called-movement' grew, and took on a life of its own....a multi-headed Gorgon of filfth, misleading statements, outright lies, and completely misunderstood science.

It is also quite typical of the pop-psychology of such "movements", especially in the modern age of nearly instant communication and accessibility. Added is the psychological component of hubris, and meglamaniacal delusions of grandeur --- being "in the know", and feeling superior to the mere "peons" who can't "see the light"...sad, really.

AND, very, very out-of-context statements that are manipulated for the purposes of deception...BY these so-called "Truth" seekers!!
[edit on 7 July 2010 by weedwhacker]


Speaking of "the psychological component of hubris and meglamaniacal delusions of grandeur", please step off your high horse and back away. I completely understand your points sir, and while I would agree with them to a certain extent (yes, there are people who will try to make a buck off of every disaster, and those who cry conspiracy at everything and anything) I would also have to say that there is more than "misleading statements, outright lies and completely misunderstood science" backing up the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. If that was the case then there would not be organizations like AE9/11, which are made up of certified professionals. I'm guessing you don't have the inside scoop on what actually went down, so until then you are just as blind in your faith that the government is being truthful as we conspiracy theorists are that the government is indeed not telling the truth. Right?


Now excuse me - must find my multi-headed Gorgon of filth and ride on, spreading the light to those damn peons ...



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Thank you for the reveal sir! I had no idea the context of the video, nor that the term "pull it" is used in the firefighting lingo also. Always nice to learn the truth.
Too many videos/comments/interviews being touted as evidence ... don't really understand why.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by misskush
 


The comment comes from a PBC documentary where Silverstien is describing the events of that day and how Building 7 came to fall.




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Silverstein was not speaking to firemen, he was being interviewed. Since Silverstein is NOT a fireman, how would he know that "pull it" was what firemen use to refer to ordering the firemen out? Furthermore, there were NO firemen in the building to "pull" and the fire dept. would have KNOWN that.

Your "official" story is a LIE.

Here is what Larry Silverstein said...

"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."

www.wtc7.net...

This is all a distraction, however. It is clear the building was demolished, and had to have been rigged beforehand. There is no denying it.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join