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.

 

WHY IS 911 FAKE! Tell us what you think and add to it!

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I would like to compose a video of why I think 911 was FAKED from beginning to end! In order to make this video I would like some ATS experts to contribute to it! I'll give some of my thoughts on it and add to it as I go! So add your Facts, or theories, or conspiracies to it! All of the contributing members will receive a place to view the video as I'll be distributing it for free! So all help is appreciated guys and gals! Please also offer corrections as you see fit! Oh yah, I'm also not concerned with video evidence of any kind, as I believe all of the MSM or released videos were faked!

Why is 911 FAKE!

1. No black boxes recovered from 4 airline planes! (Never in history have they not recovered black boxes)

2. Building 7 was not hit by a plane but fell the same day! (Explosive experts say that it would be impossible to blow it the same day it is ordered!)

3. 4 planes vaporized with very little evidence of planes even being there! (also, this is a first throughout history)

4. Hole in pentagon no where near the size of a plane! (well maybe a bi-plane, or small jet, or a rocket)

5. Plane disappears into the earth with a small hole and trail left behind! (Nothing really recovered, where is the evidence of a plane)

6. Where did all the gold go from storage's under the twin towers? (I heard there was tens of thousands of gold bars stored under there and then they just where gone, and forgotten about!)

7. Guy who owned twin towers insured them only a month or so before they fell! (Isn't insurance there to rebuild? So where are the new buildings? Why did insurance pay out? Last time I checked insurance will fight tooth and nail not to have to pay, so where was this investigation?)

8. Guy who owned twin towers and building 7 knew about the asbestos in the building! (I forget where I heard this but I understood that any government buildings with asbestos in them had to have it removed by a certain date! This was going to cost more than the twin towers where worth, next thing you know they are blown up! Hmmmm)

9. No real investigation into the twin tower bombings! (How can you investigate something when NO evidence is left to investigate?)

10. Where is Osama Bin Laden? (This is the biggest reason why 911 is FAKE!, They are telling us they can not bomb one person from a dugout or a cave? With the technology they have this guy is never found and barely reported on......Does he even exist? Did he ever?

So now you guys can see where this is going. I'd really like the help! Please comment below! Thanks!




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by theclutch
 


No offense, because I am on your side, but everything you mention is already contained in dozens of other threads, and supported by documentation and hard evidence, instead of "I heard."

Bin Laden is not wanted for the attacks. He is wanted for attacks on another US installation, but not the Twin Towers. That was misdirection. Also, Al Qaeda and/or Bin Laden have never taken credit for the attacks. These groups take credit for bumbly attempts like the shoe bomber, but they don't take credit for the most successful attack in history? Why?

The only building that fell, that was believable was Bldg 7. There are some very good ongoing threads about the NIST Report and the inconsistencies, and flat out misrepresentations (lies) in the summary of that report. The report itself is proof that the towers did NOT fall from impact, heat, or fire.

No reason to rehash everything here. There is plenty of hard data and scientific research throughout ATS to thoroughly debunk the official story.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by theclutch
I believe all of the MSM or released videos were faked!

Thanks for pulling that card to show your true intentions. There's never been a single residue of evidence to prove any of the MSM videos to be fake. There's no such thing as video fakery, CGI planes, holograms, etc. on 9/11.

That's all been debunked ad-nauseum for several years.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
And flight 93 CVR was played in a court room NYTIMES



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by theclutch
 


What a joke thread! Massive fail! What you did see happened on that day & all those people died! The only thing debatable about this whole thing is who did it & why! You are insulting the families of the victims by even writing this dribble! Utter disgrace!
edit on 30-12-2010 by phatpackage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
This is a perfect example of someone who has done ZERO research.

1 Four black boxes were recovered in total. None from the twin towers.
3 Plane parts are all over the place. Just look for the pictures.
4 The hole is the exact size of the fuselage. Just as you would expect. Google search for “straw through potato”.
5 Even non government people saw pieces of airplane.
7 Larry Silverstein is not required to rebuild. Are you required to buy a new car when yours is totaled? Imagine the public outcry if he had tried to rebuild.
8 Blown Up? Zero proof.
9 Bombings? Zero proof.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Investigate Larry Silverstein. I imagine that is as far as you would need to go.

He is the first one who openly was awarded for this tragedy.

He is most likely the strongest link to any Israeli involvement that is now suspected.

He just happened to have insurance taken out on the three buildings that fell on 9/11 just a couple months before.

He talks about "pulling" WTC 7 using a demolition term.

He could have allowed anyone in to these buildings without knowledge of others.

Larry is the key to all of this, but I never see anyone go after him.

Think about this:

Your parents and brother where murdered and your Uncle Larry just so happened to take insurance out on them just months before. Who would you suspect first?
edit on 30-12-2010 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by theclutch
 


F.Y.I - Only 2 black boxes were not found.. I thought that would be important to show how much information is simply twisted and faked by truthers to continue this little fantasy. Unfortunately we have transitioned from a world of reality to a reality of everything being a conspiracy. It will only get worse!



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   


Your parents and brother where murdered and your Uncle Larry just so happened to take insurance out on them just months before. Who would you suspect first?


Your parents and brother must first agree to the insurance before it can be issued. Plus they must have some financial interest in them. You can’t just get insurance on anyone you want.
There is nothing suspicious about the insurance aspect of WTC. There was terrorist insurance on WTC since BEFORE the first garage bombings in 93’. Get your facts straight!

Repeating lies from other lying websites only fosters ignorance on the whole matter.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Ha you're funny. Do you always "over" analyze? You wanted so much to respond that you would pick an analogy apart? Who cares if you couldn't get insurance for a real living person without a signature? That's irrelevant. Let's get back to how suspicious it is that this man did what he did.

The terror insurance would only have been a smart thing to have since the 93 attack. Kinda like having flood insurance in a flood plain. What is your point?

What facts do I need to get straight?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by samkent
 


The terror insurance would only have been a smart thing to have since the 93 attack. Kinda like having flood insurance in a flood plain. What is your point?

What facts do I need to get straight?

why did he wait untill 2001 then?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
This is a perfect example of someone who has done ZERO research.


4 The hole is the exact size of the fuselage. Just as you would expect.
hmm ok were did the wings go an the two massive engines oh yesh they dissolved into thin air. [snip]

*Mod note* Debate the OP, and the information, not each others' personalities, please.
edit on 1/1/11 by argentus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaya82

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by samkent
 


The terror insurance would only have been a smart thing to have since the 93 attack. Kinda like having flood insurance in a flood plain. What is your point?

What facts do I need to get straight?

why did he wait untill 2001 then?

He didn't sign the lease contract until 2001.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   


why did he wait untill 2001 then?


Maybe because he didn’t own them until July 24,2001? That’s what 6 weeks???

From Wiki (search larry silverstein)



Silverstein won the bid when a deal between the initial winner and the Port Authority fell through, and he signed the lease on July 24, 2001, only weeks before the towers were destroyed in the September 11 attacks.


Now that you know the truth does it still sound so sinister?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Very sinister in fact. To coincidental for him to have bought into 3 building that happened to need millions perhaps billions in asbestos abatement. Why would any sane person do this? The lease was for 99 years which was a total of 3.2 billion Dollars in leasing installments to the Port Authorities plus the expense for asbestos renovations. You really think these buildings where worth this kind of monetary risk? It was like he was playing some sick lottery... and won.


edit on 31-12-2010 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


You said I was spreading lies earlier, you are the one quoting Wikipedia. I love it when people say you can't trust websites and then they go and quote Wikipedia. Hysterical.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
911 was fake beyond what most people realize.
There was a plane that would have looked out of place to the
most casual observer, flying in an obviously out of place flight
path, that just meandered along unopposed, unchallenged,
and just allowed to run into the south World Trade Center tower.
There is some sort of visual of a dive bombing something
just coming out of nowhere which we are supposed to accept
as evidence that there was nothing anyone could do about
a plane crashing deliberately, again, twice in an hour.
That's just baloney. And I know because I watched the real
plane as it came into view on the horizon and followed it right
up to when it crashed. It was not dive-bombing or doing some
tricky banking maneuver. It just flew straight, almost, and level,
almost, and at a normal speed, and very low. We have been
fooled into thinking the plane was something other than what
it was and if it took video bakery, then they did it. I can't believe
rational thinking people will just shut their minds off to the possibility
that the media people are just paid whores and do and say
whatever they are told, or else. Get real and stop being stupid.
edit on 31-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I have been seeing some very convincing evidence provided in this forum. The only thing that I keep asking my self is, So what are these people going to do about it?
Sure you can use your computing skills to show all this "proof" to people and imagine that you are making a better place, but are you?
The only thing I see are a bunch of "egg-heads" exchanging information, just to sit back and wait for praises form each other on what a good job you did.
Dosen't the Constitution say that if you have knowledge of corruption or treasonious acts, that you are obligated to take action against it? And that if you don't take action you could be considered to be an excessory?
Sure you people should be praised for the work you have done.
But maby it's time to really try to do something with it.
I don't remember seeing anything about anyone pressing charges(you can do that as a citizen), or even presenting the evidence to an attorney.
Come on people, pull your brains and resources together and show the world that you are more than just a bunch of shut-in's that don't have anything else to do with their time than play on their computers.
Don't mean to offend anyone, and I appoligise if I have.It just seems to me that their is a lot of talent here, who's true potential to REALLY make a differance in this word is being over looked or neglected.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   


911 was fake beyond what most people realize.
There was a plane that would have looked out of place to the
most casual observer, flying in an obviously out of place flight
path, that just meandered along unopposed, unchallenged,
and just allowed to run into the south World Trade Center tower.


As if we were set up (mentally/structurally) to shoot down civilian airlines. We have trouble executing prisoners and you think they would casually issue orders to shoot down the second plane?




To coincidental for him to have bought into 3 building that happened to need millions perhaps billions in asbestos abatement.


Try $200 million.

here



“The suit sought recovery of the Port Authority's huge expenses of removing asbestos from hundreds of properties ranging from the enormous World Trade Center complex-which represented more than $200 million of the abatement costs-to bridge and tunnel toll booths.”




You really think these buildings where worth this kind of monetary risk?


He did and he’s made more money than you and I. So one has to assume he has better business sense than we do.




I love it when people say you can't trust websites and then they go and quote Wikipedia. Hysterical.


I guess I should have said crack pot websites. At least you can change Wiki. When was the last anyone was able to correct Loosechange or such.



So what are these people going to do about it?

I have suggested in another thread that if there was any proof someone would have sued in court (successfully). But so far the only two cases have been thrown out of court. If someone can sue over a hot cup of coffee from a fast food joint, and win, then if there was a shred of proof of a conspiracy, someone would sue.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join