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 Lord Jules
By the way, the real builders of the towers said they were built to withstand airplane impacts.
Originally posted by hdutton
Actually the designers DID state that they should survive an impact from a Boeing 747; the largest plane likely to strick them at the time of their construction.
Originally posted by roboe
Originally posted by TheLoony
reply to post by roboe
Might as well have been "never again". Oh, I see, it's only $700 billion now. So that makes a difference?
A difference to the tune of $1,6 trillion.
And it shoots a hole through your "they lost the money and never talked about it again".
Want to hear something else I found funny? The story wasn't even new on 9/10 2001. Here's an article from 03/03 2000: hv.greenspun.com...
By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday. The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
So, what's funny about losing trillions of dollars. No American should be laughing about it unless they were somehow the recipients of said money. Here's the "hilarity" from your link -
Originally posted by nickspm
Yeah, they stole it.
Originally posted by Lord Jules
How many times are you going to repeat this blatant lie? The clean up workers committed a crime called tampering with evidence of a crime scene, so the clean up workers were not like the fire fighters, average americans who went out to do their country a service. The fire fighters reported hearing explosions, meanwhile the clean up workers were hired by the government in order to cover up the tracks, so obviously they wouldn't talk about damage to steel, which there was by the way, the molten metal. And how ridiculous it is to say the clean up workers were the same people who built the buildings? Where do you get this nonsense from? Why would they hire the same people who built the buildings to clean it up? Because they are the only ones qualified enough to clean up the debris, since they built it? Your logic is hilarious.
By the way, the real builders of the towers said they were built to withstand airplane impacts.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Sorry to burst your bubble, but 80% of this, from Northwoods, to the ISI to the presidential briefings are straight out of Loose Change. I distinctly recognize the cover of the terrorism study referencing the 1993 WTC terrorist attack that Dylan Avery used to insinuate as being some sinister hint of the 9/11 attack, exactly the same way you're doing. There isn't anything you're providing here that hasn't been presented already many times previously.
This of course does nothing to address the fact this is still 100% innuendo dropping. Implosions leave blatant signs of sabotage on the steel and hordes of steel workers cleaning up the wreckage at ground zero...many of them being the ones who helped build the thing to begin with...say there was no such thing there. Thus, the towers were NOT brought down by implosion so two plus two still equals four regardless of how much evidence you present to make it look like it really equals five.
Incorporate the fact into your conspiracy claims as you see fit.
Originally posted by loveguy
Northwoods did not go-down, because Kennedy wasn't having it. He got in the way, and there was a (SIG) assembled to hide the true nature of his demise, I mean, investigate it. I wonder why these special interest groups are being assembled/commissioned to investigate heinous acts against the American people? It's because heinous acts against the American people get hidden from the spot-light. MSM fails to report stories based on factual evidence because it is brushed under the rug. Why do you think these issues keep getting brought-up? FOIA? Years pass before any truth be told; for the sake of "national security?"
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Incorporate the fact into your conspiracy claims as you see fit.
Let's incorporate fact into your (the official) conspiracy claims, shall we?
-- FACT: the beginning of the NIST report states that nothing in their report can be taken as factual or be used as evidence in a court of law.
Why? They used guesses, theories, and made-up computer calculations to try to explain how three WTC towers collapsed on 9/11 which can't be held up to scrutiny in a court of law.
2.) The witnesses and first responders who were there that testified to seeing/hearing the exact signs of controlled demolitions in the form of timed booms and flashes going up, down and around both towers with popping or exploding sounds associated with the flashes.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
claiming these were actual explosives rather than any of the multitude of flammalbe objects that would naturally go BOOM as the fire reached them in turn.
Originally posted by jambatrumpet
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
claiming these were actual explosives rather than any of the multitude of flammalbe objects that would naturally go BOOM as the fire reached them in turn.
I love it...random things going 'BOOM'' when they encounter fire.. Another ONLY on 911 anomaly...random objects suddenly exploding for no good reasons...almost as ridiculous as a steel building collapsing because of fire..twice..on the same day...for the first time in history...fiction..fiction and more fiction from Good ol dave...
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It's one thing to think there's some secret conspriacy going on, but sheesh, the conspiracy people claiming that fires aren't able to destroy flammable objects is taking these conspiracy stories into a whole new level of absurdity. Please rephrase the statement, 'cause this can't be what you meant to say,