Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Killtown on 9/11

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Silverstein was talking specifically about Building 7 and that maybe the smartest thing to do was to pull IT, meaning pull Building 7.


Is it normal in the USA for the FB to lay explosives in buildings that are on fire, severely damaged and threatening to collapse to demolish them?

Without anyone noticing them carrying tonnes of explosives into a burning building?




posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


"We're getting ready to pull building 6"

And? How did you conclude from this snippet that pull was being used as a verb to mean demolish? Nice assumption, fits your bias, supports your narrow narrative but by no stretch of the imagination does it implicate L. Silverstien in the purposeful and secretive demolition of building 7.

Any chance you have some explanation why building 7 would be the subject of a demolition?



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
How did you conclude from this snippet that pull was being used as a verb to mean demolish?

"We're getting ready to pull Building 6". Then: "we have to be very careful how we demolish Building 6."

And a recorded phone conversation with Controlled Demolition Inc. affirming what "pull it" means:

www.pumpitout.com...



Originally posted by hooper
Any chance you have some explanation why building 7 would be the subject of a demolition?

Any chance you have some explanation why Silverstein was discussing Building 7, then said "maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull IT", meaning pull Building 7; then not even a minute later in the documentary they talk about pulling Building 6, and then reaffirming they were talking about demolishing Building 6?

Everyone is using demolition parlance, and then the building falls straight down exactly like a controlled demolition:




Denial and close-mindedness only goes so far.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Everyone is using demolition parlance, and then the building falls straight down exactly like a controlled demolition:


Wow! Something falls straight down! On the planet Earth, where we know for a fact that unless its a controlled demolition it always falls to the left than up!

So why demolish building 7?

Pull it refered to the team of fire fighters still in the building. You know that and so does everyone else.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Originally posted by DrunkNinja
I guess you would also say its impossible for the plane to make it all the way through the wtc and out the other side as well ?


-Posted by Bonez- It would be. And there's no exit hole:


Than whats this ?

edit on 5-7-2011 by DrunkNinja because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
Than whats this ?

That is dust and smoke. There is clearly no exit hole:




Anything else is just disinformation.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Oh BoneZ! Did you forget something about Building 6?

How exactly did they demolish WTC6? What are they doing with those cables and excavators? Where were they with WTC7?

Also, since when is the fire commander in charge of planting demolition charges, or demolition of buildings, and why would they give orders to "blow up" a building? I've never heard of fire commanders giving orders to blow up buildings. Especially burning, leaning, tilting ones. And to do what? Save more lives? Save more lives by doing what again? Running a team of people into a building that is danger of taking more lives, in order to save the lives of those trying to save the building?

Can we get his quote again?

"I remember getting a call from the 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."
Larry Silverstein

So, in order to save more lives, the fire commander decided to risk more lives to plant explosives inside a dangerous, failing structure? yeah that makes a lot of sense
And who made the decision to "pull"? The fire dept. So, are you accusing the fire dept of blowing up WTC? yes or no? Remember, you are using Larry's own quote, word for word. So are the firefighters responsible for blowing up WTC7? Or wait, they yanked it down with cables?



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


I've all but stopped posting on ATS and rarely read it because it's so biased and limited on what they allow to post.

To discover the real truth about 911, one needs to research everything. There's really no two ways about it. If one limits what one reads, or labels any lead, or theory as "lunatic fringe" without having researched the lead themselves one risks missing a critical clue.

Everything must be considered a valid consideration, and every lead or theory must stand or fall on its own merit.

I find folks get banned from sites like KillTown for being disruptive (I have had contact with one who was banned, and its no great surprise).

When a site like ATS limits the TOPIC though, for example; any theory that doesn't include a plane at the WTC automagically goes to the HOAX bin, well that's clear censorship.

KillTown's theories may be fringe when compared to mainstream, but once you are exposed to the possibilities laid out on the site, the mainstream "theories", as espoused by this site, are just plain nutso.



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pshea38
 


I've all but stopped posting on ATS and rarely read it because it's so biased and limited on what they allow to post.

To discover the real truth about 911, one needs to research everything. There's really no two ways about it. If one limits what one reads, or labels any lead, or theory as "lunatic fringe" without having researched the lead themselves one risks missing a critical clue.

Everything must be considered a valid consideration, and every lead or theory must stand or fall on its own merit.

I find folks get banned from sites like KillTown for being disruptive (I have had contact with one who was banned, and its no great surprise).

When a site like ATS limits the TOPIC though, for example; any theory that doesn't include a plane at the WTC automagically goes to the HOAX bin, well that's clear censorship.

KillTown's theories may be fringe when compared to mainstream, but once you are exposed to the possibilities laid out on the site, the mainstream "theories", as espoused by this site, are just plain nutso.


Hey Yankee.
You are spot on as usual and it is sad that quality contributors like yourself are being pushed
away. The quest for (9/11)Truth is a personnal quest and all avenues should be opened and
explored in its seeking.
Of course, some have alterier motives in the game and Media Fakery seems to have been
deemed a no-go area for so many. We can only speculate as to the reasons for its outright
denial, but there is clearly more than ample evidence that it played a huge part in the 9/11
swindle/con-job, if one chooses to look.

Public realisation of the media fakery method would be a deathnail to the schemers and
would inevitably bring many other events under the fakery spotlight.

Sites like this were probably designed to gauge opinion, collect intelligence, to distract
and mis-direct. We won't labour under false illusions.

Keep the chin up and keep the hope alive, that one day, these f**kers will fall.
And fall hard with thunderous sounds that will resound around the world.

Best regards

pshea.



edit on 23-7-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Its easy to be banned from forums. All you have to do is post something contrary to the TPTB's approved spectrum of controlled opposition. What is approved within that spectrum? Why, anything that includes a plane can be discussed. But you knew that; didn't you thedman.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
So why demolish building 7?




The Enron Pipeline Connection To 9/11

Mutual blackmail makes a bit of sense. The Saudi intelligence connection was the key to get the Taliban pipeline negotiations going without the CIA or FBI finding out. The Enron political connection to the Bush and Clinton administrations was key to keeping the CIA and FBI off of the Saudis' backs while the negotiations were underway. Messy little details about terrorism were swept under the rug for the sake of the big picture.

The truth is already starting to leak out. It has just been discovered that Enron had purchased huge tracts of land in the Caspian basin, especialy in Turkmenistan, which property is allegedly still on their books. The acerage is enormous, and worthless.


But, if the Taliban pipeline had been built, Enron might have owned some of the most valuable oil exploration sites in the world, and rescued itself from insolvency. Any White House insider who helped Enron would have gotten rich, filthy rich.

When Bush's son came into office, Enron allegedly approached Cheney in late January and told him veguely about the secret Saudi-Taliban pipeline negotiations, and how important it was to America's energy policy for generations to come.

Like an idiot, Cheney agreed to keep the lid on any Saudi-Taliban investigations for a while. For the sake of the Caspian Basin pipeline, Cheney passed the word inside the beltway not to allow anyone in the Government to connect the dots.

All across America, ongoing Saudi-Taliban investigations were hindered, obstructed, or closed down, just as the Clinton administration had done before them.

What no one did was check Enron's accounting. The pipeline deal made little economic sense in view of Russian cooperation. To Enron's horror, the pipeline deal collapsed in August. Then came 9/11. Then came the Enron collapse. Then came the Cheney coverup.

Cheney's biggest problem is the two fairly senior intelligence officalls who rebelled and became whistleblowers: Robert Baer of CIA and John O'Neill of FBI. The rest of the FBI and CIA higher ups have kept their mouths shut, although a lot of lower level people are now coming forward to question their superior's strange behavior. The two rebels, Baer of CIA and O'Neill of FBI, were of course, driven into retirement.





Report: CIA Lost Office In WTC

secret office operated by the CIA was destroyed in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, seriously disrupting intelligence operations.

The undercover station was in 7 World Trade Center, a smaller office tower that fell several hours after the collapse of the twin towers on Sept. 11, a U.S. government official said.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that immediately after the attack, a special CIA team scoured the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports stored in the station, either on paper or in computers. It was not known whether the efforts were successful.

A CIA spokesman declined to comment on the existence of the office, which was first reported in Sunday's editions of The New York Times.

The New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which the Times did not identify. The station was a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the CIA after returning from overseas.

The agency's officers in New York often work undercover, posing as diplomats and business executives, among other things. They have been deeply involved in counter-terrorism efforts in the New York area, working jointly with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies.

The CIA's main New York office was unaffected by the attacks, but agents have been sharing space at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, and have borrowed other federal government offices in the city.

The agency is prohibited from conducting domestic espionage operations against Americans, but it maintains stations in a number of major United States cities, where CIA case officers try to meet and recruit students and other foreigners to return to their countries and spy for the United States.

The New York station was believed to have been the largest and most important CIA domestic station outside the Washington area.



There was a lot of shady things going down in WTC 7, the building (from what I gather) held documents connecting Cheney,Enron, and the Afghan pipeline deal. I'm not saying this is 100% definitive proof, but I'm trying to connect potential dots here. If the CT is true, then maybe WTC 7 had a majority of the paper trail of this corruption going on. Just saying, it's food for thought.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by homervb



There was a lot of shady things going down in WTC 7, the building (from what I gather) held documents connecting Cheney,Enron, and the Afghan pipeline deal. I'm not saying this is 100% definitive proof, but I'm trying to connect potential dots here.......................


Why not use a paper shredder?



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by homervb



There was a lot of shady things going down in WTC 7, the building (from what I gather) held documents connecting Cheney,Enron, and the Afghan pipeline deal. I'm not saying this is 100% definitive proof, but I'm trying to connect potential dots here.......................


Why not use a paper shredder?


Take into consideration that if people within the offices saw other people shredding official documents they may have spilled the beans on them. It's just food for thought man, I'm not saying this is concrete evidence by any means. If the CT is true, it doesn't mean everyone was in on it. It could have been key people within offices
edit on 10-7-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join