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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
When it comes to building 7 seeing is believing. So please, take a look at THIS image of ground zero and come to your own conclusions.




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
When people ask me what I think of 9/11 I always say that I don’t believe the official story but i am yet to find a more convincing conspiracy theory. By that i mean a full theory, not stuff like showing how the pentagon was hit, to be convinced it was a inside job i need to see a full theory that answerers as many questions as it raises.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
you have to research both side of any story to reveal the truth
about the 9/11 event ...
Goverment story is just non-sens
you can even see the bomb blast debris 10 stories down
during the time the building is getting down
9/11 was made to signs new terror law and to attack iraq and aghanistan
which both are sided with Iran in the center... the ultimate goal in the ME
you have to think bigger before you assume the official story of terrorist act
you are correct it was a terrorist act created by Mossad and the CIA



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
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.


Listen to the quote again. Actually, you don't need to; here's a transcript-

"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."

When he says he "got a call from the fire department commander" that certainly sounds like he was speaking to firemen, to me. What does it sound like to you, that he was ordering lunch from a deli?

You can twist and distort things as you please, but it specifically says "they made the decision to pull", meaning that in YOUR interpretation, not mine, it was the NYFD that planted these secret demolitions, and since they're not admitting it, they're involved in the coverup of the conspiracy and of the deaths of 343 of their fellow firefighters, too.

I really shouldn't have to point out how disgusting and reprehensible for you conspiracy people to be dragging the NYFD through the mud like that.


Your "official" story is a LIE.


Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, time will tell. The one thing I'm sure of, though, is that your paranoid conspiracy stories of secret controlled demolitions, staged terrorist attacks, and never ending coverups are a LIE, as well. If you don't agree with the 9/11 commission report then it's your responsibility to provide a scenario which better fits all the facts, but so far, all I've seen are goofball theories what are 100 times more improbable than the ones you're nitpicking over.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
You're right. In 2001 the melting temperature of steel was 700 degrees below what it is today. Must have been some atmospheric thing.



Well said, and it goes a lot further than that as you can
see in the video in my signature.

There are numerous lies surrounding 911 and you can hear
about a lot of them in the film "9/11 press for truth" on google video.

It steers clear of anything that is controversial and is based
on the 911 timeline using MSM articles.

No one has debunked the "9/11 press for truth" film.

Also if you look the past you find things like the Mc Collum memo,
and the fact that the Gulf of Tonkin incidence was rigged.

The one thing you can count on any government to do is lie.

Good Luck to you all !



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Its obvious you feel you can debunk anything that points to the
official story being a lie.

I offer you the video in my signature to debunk.

You can tell the firefighters from ground zero that they are
liars, and the Architects and Engineers that offer proof
the official story is a lie.

Good Luck and welcome to my foe list.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

It is quite apparent what you are doing, for anyone with a brain. You are attempting to make it look like I am insinuating that the New York Fire Dept. is somehow implicated in the WTC incident because I say it was demolished intentionally. For a host of reasons, that is where the preponderance of evidence lies.
Silverstein is not a representative of the fire department. He is telling a story, he is being interviewed. He is not being truthful, grasshopper.
I know your tactics, you attempt to redirect the scope of the argument to personality issues, appealing to emotion, because it does not suit you to respond rationally to facts.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech


I offer you the video in my signature to debunk.


Ok. Gage is a moron who exercises absolutely no intellectual integrity with his "argument" about whatever the heck he argues for.

He conveniently omits any comments of structural damage when he throws out that foolish "Fires in hi-rises have never brought down a steel-frame high rise building...ever". People who listen to that and say "Oh my gosh! He's right!" would probably say the same about the comment "A group of burping clowns climbing out of a mini car have never won the Super Bowl...ever", which is a statement just as valid as Gage's snake oil.

That is Gage's shtick. He is counting on the stupidity of people to believe what he says. He has quite the following, it seems. All someone needs is one BS statement like that and every bit of credibility is gone forever. Gage lacks any and all.

As far as "melted steel...I could care less what something *looks* like. I would be concerned about what it *is*. If you want to go through life labeling as "fact" anything you see that resembles something else, knock yourself out. You must be in a real dilemma, however, because of the people saying the collapse sounded like a freight train. I expect that out of Gage next.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


But that's the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from your theory. If you look at the testimony of the firefighters then if it was a CD they must have been involved, at least in the coverup.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I am way beyond the belief stage.
Belief implies enough doubt to rely on faith.
I 'know' it was an inside job.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I really shouldn't have to point out how disgusting and reprehensible for you conspiracy people to be dragging the NYFD through the mud like that.


Whoa. Chill out. Please show me how anyone on here just dragged the NYFD through the mud. 'Cause I'm not seeing it ...



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 


Ummmm.....what?


You can tell the firefighters from ground zero that they are
liars...


It has been MY understanding that (if in that comment you are referring to the group firefightersfor911truth.org...), that most of those who signed up for that "group" are from locations and Houses other than NYC.

I have provided that link to their "About Us" page. Please scroll down to the bottom, and check the specific details provided by the 'founder', Mr. Erik Lawyer. Looks like he is NOT a "firefighter from ground zero" at all....seems he lives in Seattle!

I also read the opening diatribe from Anton Vodvarka, Lt. FDNY (ret).

In his narrative he merely repeats a litany of many parroted "talking points" --- many that are constantly repeated, and seem to stem originally, in some cases, from the "A&E for 9/11 Truth" site. I saw no original concepts, there.

I fail to see the validity of a handful of those who seem to be "outspoken", even IF active or retired NYFD personnel --- when there are, according to Wiki (and I suggest other sources will validate this):


The FDNY, the largest municipal fire department in the United States, has approximately 11,600 uniformed officers and firefighters and over 3,200 uniformed EMTs and paramedics.


Forgive me for asking, but IF there is so much so-called "evidence" and "outrage"...then how come the "FirefightersFor9/11Truth" membership roster is so small??? Makes no logical sense...unless you stop to realize that, as in ANY group, there will always be a few who aren't dealing with a full deck of cards, each and every time.

This applies to the "Architects and Engineers" group, and the "Pilots" group (a group I have some familiarity with) and just about any other...there's the "Patriots" too --- although I see a lot of cross-breeding and over-lap, when looking at membership rosters. So, stated membership numbers are somewhat illusory.

So...NO!!! I am NOT calling NYFD personnel "liars"!! (Not sure how many of them are actually IN that group, anyhow...)

I am suggesting, though, that many of these people are just misguided --- they've been convinced, and conned, so they ARE sincere. Just wrong, in many instances.

Let's look at this from the point of the OP's titile: The "inside job" claims??

Go ahead, find all of these people who had to have been involved with the "demolition preparations"...should mount up into dozens, maybe hundreds of persons...THOSE would be the so-called "insiders", yet...so far, nearly ten years? Where are they???


Oh, and this is by no means a fact:


... and the Architects and Engineers that offer proof
the official story is a lie.


As I've mentioned, many of these 'groups' are cross-pollinating each other...but, in the case of "A&E", their prime representative is Richard Gage...and he's no prize, as has been seen repeatedly, very time he opens his mouth. No "proof", just nonsense from him....and hyperbole to fool people.

Gage is an attention whore, nothing less. It is now his PROFESSION! --- "9/11Truth". His income stream, his raison d'etre; because he's likely sullied his reputation so badly by now, unlikely he's able to find real emplyment as an architect anymore.

Here, watch how, when you actually listen to his ramblings deconstructed, and examined, without the smoke and mirrors, his contradictions pile up....

(Sadly, by now he's probably seen this, and has no doubt practiced, and refined, to improve his acting abiity...):





[edit on 7 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by misskush
 


If you look at the testimony by the fire chiefs at Seven (from memory Nigro and Hayden) you can see that they basically concur with Silverstein. They downplay his role in proceedings, but they say this was a collapse initiated by fire that they suspected was on the cards from about 2pm when they noticed the building listing.

Neither mentions CD as a possibility. Which means that if the notions above are correct, they are in on it.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Just wondering what your opinion on the validity of eye-witness accounts is. Not looking for a rant, just a general opinion. I appreciate your critical eye, even if I do disagree.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SeenMyShare
 

You stated;
'Since Wikipedia is a user generated source you won't find many here who give credence to it's "authority". '

As it happens, Wiki is a very good source, items that are unverified are clearly marked as such. Entries are reviewed not only by 100's of scholars who do nothing else, but the millions of users, some of whom are more informed, and can spot & report errors. These are also marked.
There's a forum about Wiki on Facebook 'if wiki says it's true, then it must be'-it's well worth the time to read this forum before passing judgement on Wiki. If you want UNverified (and some truly bizarre) 'facts', go to Peswiki


[edit on 7-7-2010 by playswithmachines]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

No, they could be just plain WRONG. In fact, I have seen plenty of videos of emergency personnel reacting (on the scene) and talking about explosions to convince me they had NO idea what was going on, or what would happen next.
If you look at WTC7, you see the center collapse first. Perfect. Controlled.
End of story.
But, why am I responding to you when you simply make statements as fact with absolutely NO sources?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by misskush
 


That's a rather vague question....but, in general, ALL "eyewitness" accounts need to be considered, and evaluated in context, according to the individual's experience level, education, etc.

Take a moment to research the topic...here is just one site, for a start:

www.associatedcontent.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

No, they could be just plain WRONG. In fact, I have seen plenty of videos of emergency personnel reacting (on the scene) and talking about explosions to convince me they had NO idea what was going on, or what would happen next.
If you look at WTC7, you see the center collapse first. Perfect. Controlled.
End of story.
But, why am I responding to you when you simply make statements as fact with absolutely NO sources?



It's unlikely that they're wrong, given that they said they thought the building would fall as early as 2pm. Indeed they formed an exclusion zone well before, and then the building did indeed come down.

You're asking me to believe that they thought the building would fall, but were wrong, because when it did it came down for different reasons than they expected. Thus proving them wrong.

I'm not going to dig up the sources for you when they're easily available via google. Feel free not to respond.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by rival
 


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.


The only conspiracy I parrot is my own. I endured two years of
ridicule for my belief about how and why 9/11 may have been caused, and
how the PTB would use the patriotic ground-swell of support to
their advantage and push their agenda. My first post to the web
to warn my fellow Americans about allowing their emotions to cloud their
judgement was on 9/12--I was vilified. In fact, no one at all was swayed by
my argument until the Patriot Act was presented.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


Entrepreneurship is a given. I recall being quite angry with all the
patriotic stickers (available in EVERY store) "Support Our Troops".
My reply was and is, "YES, support our troops, BRING THEM HOME."


Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


Pot, kettle, black. However, my kettle is open, your pot seems to be closed.


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


Not out-of-context, and not manipulated--(inre: Silverstein).
Merely presented as a bit of evidence. I agree it is not a COMPELLING
bit of evidence to others, to me, it is a guilty soul in disbelief and shame
for what it has done, revealing a tiny sliver of humanity. I hope that's
not too cryptic.







[edit on 7-7-2010 by rival]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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.


I DID NOT go THAT ROUTE as you put it. I presented a piece of evidence.
(And not a very good one at that.) It was not out-of-context (I've listened
to the entire interview). And I take offense at your straw-man argument.
I AM NOT implicating the NYFD in ANY WAY. Those guys, and all the
first responders--to the last responders, are heroes. Also I am aware
that the term "pull it" is in the lexicon of other industry. But we weren't
shooting skeet here, and the most relevant terminology for "pull it"
resides in the lexicon of the building demolition industry.
Once again, it is presented as evidence, construct your own opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join