Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11, THE CASE FOR TRUTH: Part 1; The Build up to September 11th 2001

page: 3
80
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lord Jules
By the way, the real builders of the towers said they were built to withstand airplane impacts.


Yet another truther lie, from the damn fool conspiracy sites - care to show us where the designers of the towers said that they could survive more than 1 impact - no, of course you cannot!




posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
First of all, people have to be intelligent enough to recognize controlled demolitions when they see them. Buildings 1, 2, and 7 were obviously brought down through controlled demolitions. The first two buildings were brought down using top-down demolition:

www.youtube.com...

Building 7 used the more traditional method: bottom-up. Bottom-up is faster because there is less resistance.

I realize some people are just intellectually dishonest. Maybe they are trying to distract people from the fact that the CIA paid for 9/11 to be done.

Maybe some others are trying to deflect attention away from Israeli terrorism to try to shift the blame to Osama bin Laden. This is what happened in October 2001 at the Mexican Congress.

whatreallyhappened.com...



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


I could not resist telling you that there were two separate impacts on two separate buildings.So your implications of multiple impacts won't wash.

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.

But again, no one could ever plan for a building to survive multiple impacts... which did not happen.
edit on 30-10-2010 by hdutton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

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.


Oh dear, yet another lie from a damn fool conspiracy site - the WTC buildings were unveiled to the public on January 18, 1964, The Boeing 747 was not even started to be designed until 1965... and did not fly until 1969

You really should not believe anything one of those damn fool conspiracy sites states without checking!



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
The basic design was unveiled in 1964. The first tower of the wtc wasn't actually completed until December 1970. It appears the towers were built to withstand a 707 rather than a 747.



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   

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...


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 -


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.


How the hell can you make $7 Trillion in "adjustments" when your annual budget is less than $500 Billion? That's over 14 years worth of combined budgets! WTF!!!!

The American taxpayer has been raped and we don't even realize it. Dear God! Anyone want to guess how they've been funding this New World Order? Anyone..........? (this doesn't even include the trillions of $ siphoned off through the Federal Reserve. No wonder our actual national debt is over $50Trillion.



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   

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 -

You still don't get iy, do you?

They never lost the money in the first place.

It is simply decades and decades of bad accounting that was finally being dealt with. They had several hundred different acounting systems, the majority of which could not speak to each other, with the result that they had to go through it by hand to make the numbers add up.

But sure, blame it on "them" if it makes you feel better about yourself



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Yeah, they stole it.



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nickspm
Yeah, they stole it.




Who is "they" and when was it stolen ?



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Alfie,

I can't keep going back to the beginning on every single point to spell everything out.


Twenty years ago, Department of Defense Analyst Franklin C. Spinney made headlines exposing what he calls the "accounting games." He's still there, and although he does not speak for the Pentagon, he believes the problem has gotten worse.

"Those numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year," he said.

www.cbsnews.com...



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

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.


Now, I would have thought you conspiracy people would be leery about trying to call me on something by now becuase I have the facts on my side so I can always always always back up everything I say. I have a copy of the book, "Aftermath", by photographer Joel Meyerowitz on my lap as I type this. It is a collection of photographs and stories he picked up as he covered the cleanup of ground zero:

"There were also flagmen and mechanics, demolition experts and water truck operators, security overseers, and many more. But I always come back to the ironworkers, whose seven thousand degree torches sent cascades of sparks spilling everywhere over the site as they cut it down, piece by piece. Many of them were Native Americans, Mohawks from upper New York State whose agility while working on the high steel is legendary. Or, guys like Willie Quinlan, who told me he'd come here as a young journeyman to build the North Tower. Now he was back, to take it all apart." - "Aftermath, pg 41

This one passage written by someone who was physically at ground zero proves the claim that steel workers were on site and were cutting the steel with torches right there, and that there were steel workers on site who assisted in building the towers to begin with, but that's neither here nor there. Whenever the truthers present something interesting here I'll do research on my own to learn more about it becuase I'm genuinely interested in learning the truth behind the events of 9/11...but whenever I post something here not only do the truthers refuse to lift a finger to do any actual research on their own outside what Prison Planet and Loose Change is feeding them, I practically have to give them my research on a silver platter with a glass of Iced tea and a sun umbrella...and even then, they'll only believe it if it comes from Dylan Avery. It'd be be one thing if they said, "hey Dave I'd like to learn more about this", but they don't. They simply say it's a pack of lies without even investigating to see if it actually is a lie, which is being horribly uninformed and ignorant. Sheesh, little children behave this way.

As for the iron workers were "hired by the gov't to cover up their tracks", I'm sorry, but this everyone-is-a-secret-agent slander is getting so stale it's become thoroughly unbelievable. According to you, *everyone* who says something that discredits these conspiracy stories of yours is a secret agent, from FEMA, to the FAA, to NIST, to MIT, to Perdue, to NATO, to NYPA, to NYPD, to NYFD, to the Red Cross, to even a guy driving a cab out by the Pentagon, and *now* the workers brought in to clear the wreckage. Good grief, how many people are in on this supposedly secret conspiracy, anyway?

Time to put up or shut up, my friend- You didn't believe there were people clearing the steel from ground zero who helped build the towers and I gave you evidence showing you that it was true. I now ask *you* to post even a microbe of proof backing up the claim Willie Quinlan or Joel Meyerowitz are secret gov't agents "hired by the gov't to cover up their tracks". I'm not holding my breath, though, becuase up until now every time you conspiracy people get spanked like this you always always always disappear back onto the woodwork only to reappear later to foist the same debunked drivel all over again. Maybe you can prove me wrong on that statement, at least.


By the way, the real builders of the towers said they were built to withstand airplane impacts.


This is a disingenuous statement since the towers *did* withstand the impacts of the airplanes. It was the fires in addition to damage from the plane impacts in addition to the unique design of the towers that (according to every serious study on the collapse) brought the towers down. Not that it matters, since in a Prison Planet interview with Alex Jones, those very same designers are on record as accepting the findings of the FEMA report, which makes your speculation entirely moot. Go ahead, say I'm lying or that they're secret agents hired by the gov't to cover their tracks. I double dog dare you.

Sheesh, some people. You have no credibility, Jules.



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   

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.


Hi Dave. How's it going?

I only skimmed through this thus far, and I may have missed an earlier innuendo dropping? I have one of my own in hopes you won't mind entertaining my assumption? It only stands to reason that not until after the assassination of Kennedy did these operations tend to bare fruit?

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?"

Maybe it's not a theory, could this statement be backed by historical records? If Americans are dying by the thousands, National Security doesn't seem to take such a high priority when protecting the "people" now does it? Yet, secrets are kept in the interest of "National Security."

i hope my two-cents makes sense to others here. I bid you all a Happy Halloween.



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   

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?"


If you're trying to change this into a JFK assassination discussion then I'll need to defer this to others, since there are only so many secret conspiracies to take over the world that I can possibly keep track of. I will say that...

a) Everyone is deliberarely misquoting Northwoods, and I know this 'cause I read it. The idea wasn't to go around killing people; the idea was NOT to kill people becuase they wanted live witnesses to report on Cuban aggression. Empy planes were to be destroyed, empty ships were goign to be sunk, nonexistant passengers were goign to be killed, friendly Cuban dissidents in Communist Cuban uniforms would be captured in Guantanamo, and the like. Even then, JFK nixed the idea. How is this evidence the gov't *would* murder innocent Americans on 9/11?

b) That doesn't even take into account that the plan might not have even worked. All that was needed for the plan to unravel would be for newspaper reporters to track down the next of kin of the passengers to find out the passengers were make believe. The conspiracy people constantly refuse to acknowledge this becuase they always concentrate on anything that supports their conspiracy stories and ignore everything that refutes them.

c) All this is nothing but innuendo dropping to begin with. You know as well as I do the only reason anyone is making much ado about Northwoods is becuase they want to use it to accuse the gov't of staging 9/11 as a false flag attack in some kind of proof by proxy. I'm sorry, but using something that never happened as proof that something else actually did happen is bad logic.

d) Even being used as innuendo dropping it doesn't make any sense. Northwoods had a clear end goal, namely to instigate a war with Cuba to oust Castro. These 9/11 conspiracies OTOH are the most goofball Rube Goldberg schemes I've ever heard, with faked hijacked aircraft used to cover up secret planted controlled demolitions to cover up a false flag operation to cover up a stafed war with Iraq over oil using Afghanistan as a proxy. Oh yeah, they faked a crash site out in Shanksville for no reason whatsoever and then turned around and covered up the faked crash site they faked for no reason whatsoever. Huh??

You conspiracy people are trying to present "a case for 9/11 truth"? Fine, go right ahread, but it doesn't help your case when you're embellishing things in such an obvious manner like this.



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   

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.


You forgot to mention that it also included eyewitness accounts that confirmed the scenario they calculated out, such as NYPD helicopter pilots reporting the steel columns were glowing red from the fires and looked like they were going to collapse, as well as firefighters reporting out of control fires in WTC 7 creating a three story tall bulge in the side of the structure. Whenever I mention this you get all phony on me, forget your loyalty to eyewitness accounts, and accuse the eyewitnesses of being secret gov't agents.

Credibility to you isn't dependent on the source of the information. Credibility to you is simply whether it happens to agree with what you yourself want to believe.

What trusters fail to realize is that since the NIST report cannot be taken as factual, then it is not a fact that three WTC towers were not brought down with explosives. It's only a theory, period.

Exceptionally bad proof of concept. For the building to have been brought down by explosives there necessarily would be tell-tale signs of sabotage from explosives on the steel, and I've posted enough photographic evidence that shows there was no such evidence. Granted, you always rely on the "everyone is a secret gov't agent" to explain the gargantuan holes in your conspiracy stories, so you'll have to forgive me if I say I need more evidence for your conspiracy claims than just abject paranoia.


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.


You are making this up and we both know it. Noone is refuting there were explosions heard within the building, but where you're introducing make believe on your end is 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. The proof is in the pudding: you have zero material evidence of any actual explosives in the building, but I have plenty of material evidence there were flammable transformers, pressurized pipes, elecrical equipment, fire extinguishers, etc.

Besides, it's already been shown you are dishonestly selective of which eyewitnesses you believe and which you do not, so using this tactic is more indicative of an agenda rather than any serious research.



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   

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...
edit on 31-10-2010 by jambatrumpet because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

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...


"For no good reasons?!?" Dude, there were fires burning within the towers that were ignited by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel. The floor immediately below the impact area of UA175 was a dedicated mechanical floor that contained myriad electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, generators, etc that are flammable, and it would be the very first place where all the burning aviation fuel would have been spilled. If you're genuinely attempting to say that high voltage electrical transformers can't explode if they overheat then you're lying through your teeth 'cause I know from personal experience that they can.

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,



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


Like The Honorable Mr. Winston Churchill once said during the Trying Times of Dec. 1944 , the Truth Must Always be Guarded by a Bodyguard of Lies . That Lesson has been Learned very well BTPTB even today . It is Only through much Soul Searching that the Courage to Seek the Truth and Confront the Lies their Opressors wish them to Believe without Question , will the Truth Truely be brought out in the Open for All to see . I Commend All of the People who Espire to do just that , and look forward to the Day when their Efforts prove them to be Correct .



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I can see that you have put a good post and therefore I give you a flag.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Thank You Kiwi. I have been saying the same thing for years. You have shown in this thread that something wasn't right before the attacks ever happened. And the resident debunkers have tried to derail the thread by talking about building imploding and missing money at the Pentagon. Anyone of you guys got anything to say about the OP? This thread is very clearly detail and easy to follow, yet people have somehow gotten sidetracked.

Can we dispute a False Flag Operation is a real thing? Can you dispute it has been done before? It doesn't matter whether Operation Northwoods was acted upon or not. It shows the mindset and lengths which people will go to achieve what they want.

Can you dispute the case for going to Iraq was greatly exaggerated and we were made to fear them and their capabilities?

Can we dispute that the Administration had questionable ties to people in the Middle East? Can we deny companies that were affiliated with the administration seemed to benefit greatly from the events?

Can we dispute that prominent members of the administration were members of PNAC? Can we dispute their document Rebuilding America Defenses basically describes what happened on 9/11 and after?

Can we dispute the affiliations with the BCCI and the BCCI Scandal? IMO, this part of the story is huge.The BCCI also plays a big role in other events, but that isn't on topic.

Can we dispute Brzezinski's comments about our involvement in the Russia Afghanistan conflict are different than the way it was told to us? Can we dispute that out of the same group we funded, organized, trained and armed arose this so called Al-Quaeda? Does this not show we are willing to use these people to achieve what we want?

Can we dispute the accounts that say Osama Bin Laden was at a hospital in Dubai shortly before September 11 2001?

Can we dispute that many of the hijackers entered the US on the Visa Express program only offered to Saudi Arabia? Can we dispute most the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia? Can we dispute someone tried to alert officials and nothing happened?

Can we dispute that 2 of the hijackers lived with an FBI informant in California? These are also the 2 referred to when some people will say "lived openly and had their names in the phone book."

Can we dispute that people within the FBI tried to alert higher ups of possible danger but weren't allowed to pursue further? Can we dispute Colleen Rowley?

Can we dispute that the US received multiple warnings about a possibility of the 9/11 attacks?

These were the issues raised in the OP, and I would like to try to get back on track because this thread is very important. Now since the debunkers claim that all the questions have been answered, this should be an easy target for them. I read all the replies and none seem to address any of the issues raised by KIWI, and we're on page 3. So let's get back on track and discuss the topic.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

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,

You once again present highly unlikely scenarios as the 'norm'....and somehow these 'flammable materials' just 'happened' to explode at the same time of the buildings collapse (as that is the point at which witness' heard the explosions)...

And this is all assuming that the jet fuel didn't burn up in the original explosion upon impact, and somehow 'simmered' for hours...

and your explanation also call for this 'magical' jet fuel to, not just cause explosions on 'Que' of the buildings' collapse, but also somehow dribble down and cause explosions in the basement of the building....

just a hint dave...using a condescending tone is not a substitute for 'factual' evidence...

So, Mr. Dave...what is the explanation for these 'myriad of electrical transformers' laying dormant and suddenly exploding within seconds of the collapse of the buildings?

edit on 1-11-2010 by jambatrumpet because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-11-2010 by jambatrumpet because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join