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.

 

99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

page: 23
274
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I usually do not reply on threads with 100 flags let alone 200 plus. However, here it goes.

Will the op ever decide what happened on 911 from his own conclusion or will he keep putting up videos and statements from people that obviously don’t like our beloved government…I wonder?

Just like there is no god…there is no conspiracy…Period !

Your thread lacks the real story of what happened.

Your sites and information comes from people that don’t like the government and just have to much time on there hands, not only that, but they have a conspiracy brain in which holds no water to what reality and the truth stands for.




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by TupacShakur
The WTC construction manager said this:

the building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it...I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet-liners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid and the jet plane is just the pencil puncturing that screen netting
.


Why do you think he would know? he had nothing at all to do with the construction of the building.


Obstensibly he was the construction and project manager, (r.i.p.Frank A. DeMartini on 9/11) so are you saying without a disclosure that the building went up in a different way than was proposed?
Or, would you rather just be cryptic.

The interview early 2001,

pligg.911newscentral.com...

I think it should be noted that, in some quarters doubts have been raised that WTC was designed with a jet collision in mind at all. Mr DeMartino speaking about it before the event infers differently.

Also a quote from the late John Skilling,


In 1993, John Skilling, lead structural engineer for the WTC, said the WTC wouldn't collapse if hit by a plane?
The Seattle Times
February 27, 1993

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
Obstensibly he was the construction and project manager,


Once again, why do you think he would know? He had nothing at all to do with the construction of the WTC.
edit on 27-6-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur



Very grown up.

Show me where the posts you mention prove the presence of molten steel. You're very big on demanding that debunkers satisfy your questions, and yet the world carries on broadly as it was, with the traditional view of what happened on 9/11 largely intact.

You are in the minority, with a contentious and unproven view. If you want your ideas to be accepted you're going to have to do better than this.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by smurfy
Obstensibly he was the construction and project manager,


Once again, why do you think he would know? He had nothing at all to do with the design or the construction of the WTC.


Well, thanks for adding "design" in the reconstruction of your original question. So who is the "He" you now refer to?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by smurfy
Obstensibly he was the construction and project manager,


Once again, why do you think he would know? He had nothing at all to do with the design or the construction of the WTC.


Well, thanks for adding "design" in the reconstruction of your original question. So who is the "He" you now refer to?


You obviously have no clue at all what his actual job entailed!



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


In the 50-plus years of steel hulled warships, no one had ever attacked, damaged or sunk EIGHT battleships until it happened on the same day, Dec. 7, 1941. History is made of events that have never happened until they do. Its not a conspiracy.
That's not a terrible comparison, however you're forgetting that Pearl Harbor was attacked by hundreds of airplanes, with weapons, and the World trade centers got hit by two airplanes. While both the Japanese and the "terrorists" were attempting to inflict as much damage as possible, the Japanese had many more resources at their disposal to ensure that they didn't leave there without kicking some ass, a total of 414 planes, while the terrorists had two planes with which they knocked down two enormous steel skyscrapers. Plus both warships and skyscrapers were designed to take a certain amount of damage before being compromised, but the warships can only handle so many airplanes, however the WTC construction manager and structural enginner both agreed that the WTCs could have easily withstood a couple airplane crashes without the building structure failing.

Also what about #2?


Umm, once again, in ANY large fire there are explosions. Doesnt mean you are hearing bombs though. As for the 9/11 Commission, it was chartered to investigate the history, circumstances and events of the day. Contrary to the beliefs of the conspiracy crowd, the Commission was NEVER supposed to do engineering investigations on the buildings that day.
You're right in many large fires explosions do occur, however when explosions heard prior to the collapse has molten metal to go with it, which as most of us know is a by-product of thermite, as well as a demolition-esque collapse to follow it, in a collapse entirely new to mankind which ends up occuring three times in the same unprecedented manner, than it's clear that they weren't just your typical fire explosions.


The Pentagon is an office building that happens to be the home of the Department of Defense. All the comments about it being the most protected, most fortified, more covered building in the world are horse manure. But in the interest of fairness....show me the evidence that you have, that shows it has more CCTV cameras than any other building in the world.
You bring up a good point, I've heard a few times that it has the most CCTV cameras but when I searched for it the results I got said that "The location and number of cameras are classified", so I really have no idea. However think about how many diplomats, politicians, and members of our government are in there everyday, don't you think that every single hallway, office, and square inch of that bulding would be wired to the max? That's just my opinion, but if I can't even walk around Walmart without 2 cameras watching me to make sure that I don't steal a $60 videogame or some crappy clothes, then I would bet my life that I couldn't walk around the Pentagon unmonitored with all of the 'important' people in there. Let me know what you think.


I love when people use this one. It generally shows that they haven't actually read the document they purport to quote.

Here is the first example of Pearl Harbor found in the document....

""Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"."

Let's see.....what do they mean by transforming...

At the beginning of the chapter it says this...

""To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence".

One of the funnier parts is that PNAC actively presses for a global missile shield....pretty useless against airliners flown by kamikaze pilots don't you think?

By the way, the organization is the Project for the New American Century. The document you are misquoting is entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses : Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century"
You're right I haven't read that document and I don't plan to. To be fair I was just paraphrasing the "coincidence" videos in order, and I'm pretty sure somebody earlier in the thread pointed out that this is taken out of context. Still, despite the underlying theme of the chapter, it's still a pretty big coincidence that the year after a paper was published by members of the Bush Administration, that exact event that they described, regardless of whether it's in context of the chapter or not, happened, and that's pretty unlucky.


Nope. What you are referencing is a May 08, 2001 statement that places Dick Cheney in charge of developing a seamless integration (the Office of National Preparedness) of various Federal agencies programs for responding to WMD attacks. Nowhere in the statement does it mention NORAD or intercepting hostile aircraft.
Nope. What I am referencing is a June 1, 2001 document that changes the militaries procedure when dealing with errant aircraft. Read it and weep: Page 1
Page 2
Page 3


Proof?
Again this one is taken straight from the video, but I can only find four confirmed wargames.


CMK: The question was, we had four wargames going on on September 11th, and the question that I tried to pose before the Secretary had to go to lunch was whether or not the activities of the four wargames going on on September 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks.

RM: The answer to the question is no, it did not impair our response, in fact General Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission I believe - I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond, given that NORAD didn't have the overall responsibility for responding to the attacks that day. That was an FAA responsibility. But they were two CPXs; there was one Department of Justice exercise that didn't have anything to do with the other three; and there was an actual operation ongoing because there was some Russian bomber activity up near Alaska. So we -

Taken from here


Nope, NORAD NEVER stands down. Out and out lie.
lol you seem a little too sure of yourself, are you sure they absolutely "NEVER" stand down? WTF were they doing while some terrorists were joyriding four commercial airliners, jumping on the taxpayer funded trampoline at their base? Was our entire nations air-defense giving Dick Cheney a sponge bath while ignoring the four aircrafts which were off course and not responding? Americans always prized out powerful military, but we can't even intercept let alone shoot down four commercial airlines? What happens when a country sends over just a few airplanes that actually have some guns attached to them? How will we respond to an actual military attack if we cannot handle four commercial airliners? And Bush was dishing out the promotions after our multi-billion dollar defense system just failed miserably and let 3000 American citizens get killed in a preventable attack!


Hmm...since the insurance companies paid out after the 1993 terrorist attack against the WTC, I wonder where you get the idea that he "reworked" his insurance. I will point out to you that it was his BANK that forced him to take out the 3.5 billion dollar insurance policy. WHICH, had not been finalized before the attacks.
I would love if you pointed that out to me, is there an article over that or something to back it up other than your word? And if his bank forced him to take out the insurance policy, how did his bank get the 1 in 1000 shot that it would be a terrorist attack? Did they get volcano insurance? Tsunami insurance? Lightning insurance? Earthquake insurance? Because all of those things have badly damaged buildings in the past; terrorist attacks have only destroyed a few entire buildings in the past, and the thought that his insurance luckily protected against terrorist attacks is unbelievable to me. And there were a few suspicious details in #7 that you failed to address, such as Larry Silversteins claim that he was referring to the firemen but there were no firemen in the building, or how Rudi Guliani chose to not stay in his bunker at Building Seven, but no big deal.


Minimal damage? FDNY reports from that day speak of a 20 story hole in the building, of bulges in the structure and of pieces falling off. Hardly minimal.
You want to talk "hardly minimal"?
Building 3:


Building 4:



Buildings 5 and 6:




Building 7:
"What a RAGER, this one's coming down! Set up a perimeter, total structural failure is imminent!"



Which explains why when WTC 7 collapsed, it damaged ALL of the buildings around it, including one so badly that IT had to be torn down....oh, wait, that doesnt explain it.........
Yeah imagine how bad the damage could have been if it actually collapsed as it should have, if it wasn't a straight down symmetrical collapse nearby buildings would have dropped like dominoes.


Ask the corporate execs that were found guilty and sentenced to prison about those "lost" files.
Got links? -- (Said in the tone of the "got milk" catch phrase)


Those are columns of the Towers that were cut as part of the clean up process.
See above response.


Nope, he is not related to the Bush brothers. That allegation came from Margie Burns in one of her columns.....one that she retracted years ago.
See above response, but I believe you on this one. However what about Marvin Bush? Are you just not going to touch that part of it?


Um, Mr Forbes has changed his story many times over the years. The current story from his is that his floors (three of them) had a partial power down over the space of 22 hours. Which wouldnt even begin to cover all three buildings.
Those were his words not mine. What about the other dudes similiar testimony?


Nope. There had been EXTRA dogs on duty at the WTC complex, and it was the EXTRA dogs that had been returned to their normal assignments. The WTC dogs were there.
I'll take your word on this but how about a link to help me sleep at night?


At the time of the attack, the Towers were considered to be at full occupancy.
Source?

Thanks for taking the time to respond, that was kid stuff, right? You seemed to have no problem debunking many of those, so now that you handled the bunny slopes, how about you take off the training wheels and debunk that video posted by Hijaqd? If you attempted to do that next I could not even express how much I would respect you.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

Very grown up.

Show me where the posts you mention prove the presence of molten steel. You're very big on demanding that debunkers satisfy your questions, and yet the world carries on broadly as it was, with the traditional view of what happened on 9/11 largely intact.

You are in the minority, with a contentious and unproven view. If you want your ideas to be accepted you're going to have to do better than this.
Yeah how immature of me being realistic, sorry. I showed you the posts in an earlier post that you didn't see at the time, and I just showed you that post where I told you where the posts were (very confusing wording), and now you're asking for more evidence?

Once again I will show to you the following irrefutable evidence which you deny the validity of:
Taken from Hijaqd's post on Page 15 of this thread-




What about those images do not prove the existence of molten metal to you? Is that molten metal not molten metally enough for you?


How about those numerous witness testimonies? Still doesn't prove it to you? So there is video evidence of molten metal dripping from the tower prior to its collapse, photographic evidence of molten metal within the debris, and numerous witness testimonies claiming to have seen molten metal, but you're not convinced? If videos, photos, and witnesses aren't enough then what would prove it to you? Do want me to build a time machine, take you back in time, and show it to you and throw you in it to verify the intense heat?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
however the WTC construction manager and structural enginner both agreed that the WTCs could have easily withstood a couple airplane crashes without the building structure failing.


The construction manager that made that statement had nothing at all too do with the construction of the WTC.... just what do you think his job entailed?

edit on 27-6-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   


A little comparison of thermite falling for those who don't think thermite was used in the building.
edit on 27-6-2011 by chancemusky because: (no reason given)



www.youtube.com...


Thats the link, wont imbed, sorry
edit on 27-6-2011 by chancemusky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Immortalgemini527
 

I usually do not reply on threads with 100 flags let alone 200 plus. However, here it goes.
Um...why not? And why did you feel the need to mention that?



Will the op ever decide what happened on 911 from his own conclusion or will he keep putting up videos and statements from people that obviously don’t like our beloved government…I wonder?
Oh I missed you Gemini, your claims of our "beloved government" just puts a big grin on my face every time
. What about our government do you see as "beloved", especially after Operation Northwoods became public and it was discovered that our justification for entering the Vietnam was was a lie?: Gulf of Tonkin
Gulf of Tonkin

And i have decided on my own what happened, I based that decision off of facts, pieces of the official story that are impossible yet the public believes. Those videos that I post just get the points across that I would spend 20 minutes typing out. True I formulated my opinion from other sources, documentaries, conspiracy sites, and so on, but what did you formulate your opinon from, the 9/11 Commission Report? Mainstream media?-- did you just accept what some reporter reading a script told you as fact?


Just like there is no god…there is no conspiracy…Period !
Your logic is rock solid, it all makes sense now. [/sarcasm]


Your thread lacks the real story of what happened.
And by that I assume you mean the official story of what happened. Why don't you provide us serfs with the "real story"? I wan't to know what really went down, fill me in dawg.


Your sites and information comes from people that don’t like the government and just have to much time on there hands, not only that, but they have a conspiracy brain in which holds no water to what reality and the truth stands for.
No my information comes from people who are in a position to give their opinion. The structural engineer and construction manager of the WTCs, 1400+ engineers and architects, 250+ pilots and aviation professionals, 400+ professors, and 220+ senior millitary/intelligence service/law enforcement/government officials. Also photographic and video evidence, witness testimonies, and simple high school physics. All of that vs. this guy's word:



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 

The construction manager that made that statement had nothing at all too do with the construction of the WTC.... just what do you think his job entailed?
Right the construction manager had nothing to do with the construction...just brilliant.

What do I think the construction manager's job entailed? I think that he was responsible for manning the lemonade stand in case workers got tired on the job.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
No my information comes from people who are in a position to give their opinion. The structural engineer and construction manager of the WTCs,


Just what makes youthink the construction manager knew anymore about the WTC than anyone else? Justwhat do you think his job actually was?



Yes, this is how a truther works. They have to use a photoshopped picture....

original here
en.wikipedia.org...:Bush_phone_9-11.jpg



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 



Just what makes youthink the construction manager knew anymore about the WTC than anyone else? Justwhat do you think his job actually was?
Well, since he was in a position of authority, one would assume that he's a little more qualified and has to know what he's doing on the job. Do you think they just slapped a hard-hat on some bum and said "Yo, make sure these guys don't horse around on the job"?


Did I photoshop the words into his mouth?
edit on 27-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Well, since he was in a position of authority, one would assume that he's a little more qualified and has to know what he's doing on the job. Do you think they just slapped a hard-hat on some bum and said "Yo, make sure these guys don't horse around on the job"?


Do you think he was involved in the construction of the WTC?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 




Do you think he was involved in the construction of the WTC?
I don't know and I don't care, the construction manager CLEARLY knows what he is talking about when talking about the building that he managed the construction of.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
I don't know and I don't care, the construction manager CLEARLY knows what he is talking about when talking about the building that he managed the construction of.


That stupid comment shows that you have no clue at all about 9/11.

The "construction manager" you quoted had nothing at all to do with the construction of the WTC.

This appears typical of truthers, they do not understand what they are posting, they just cut and paste some garbage they find on a conspiracy theory site!



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Who cares about the aircraft part. focus on the three buildings that dropped like flies. That is the real reason the majority deep inside truly doubt 14 arabs pulled this off alone. I still havent heard one person say : i belive jetfuel from the two commercial jets demolished three steel/concrete buildings. Can you say that?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


So you believe jetfuel demolished three steal/concrete structures. Is that your case?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 

That stupid comment shows that you have no clue at all about 9/11.

The "construction manager" you quoted had nothing at all to do with the construction of the WTC.

This appears typical of truthers, they do not understand what they are posting, they just cut and paste some garbage they find on a conspiracy theory site!

So my opinion that the construction manager knows about the building that he managed the construction of shows my ignorance?


And how does being a little misguided on just one detail, one testimony of hundreds, one piece of evidence out of hundreds which has been presented in this thread prove that I know nothing about 9/11? That's such a sweeping, generalized view of my knowledge of a subject that it shows that you have no clue at all about thinking before you say stupid things.

If I'm stupid and I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, I just cut, paste, and bow to Alex Jones, why don't you take the time to debunk the OP or the video posted by Hijaqd, which I've asked you to do so many times, since it's most likely just BS that we don't understand?

Do you understand basic physics? Gravity? You know, what comes up must come down? Well, there's a speed that all objects fall at regardless of the mass. Here's where it gets tricky, so try to keep up, things that fall without things in the way fall much faster than with things in the way. Now take a minute, and really absorb that information, then think about why the twin towers and WTC7 fell nearly at free-fall speed? Then tell me I don't know anything about 9/11.

I'll ask you again, and don't ignore the request, at least tell me why you refuse:

Why do you continue to condescend us and say all we're wrong about everything, we don't know what we're talking about, and so on, if you won't even take the time to do what the purpose of this thread was to begin with? DEBUNK THE OP! Or do the alternative, lazy version that I've also asked you to do multiple times, DEBUNK THAT VIDEO POSTED BY HIJAQD!.
edit on 27-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post and facepalm




top topics



 
274
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join