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.

 

How they got the explosives in the buildings; the easiest part of the puzzle

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



Who would you turn to?

Uh....anyone? You just found out you may have unknowingly participated in the murder of 1000's of your fellow citizens and you can't think of a single person that you could tell? Besides, if you are complicit then all you need do is describe, in detail, your limited responsibility. You could do this to any member of the press, wait, I forgot, you think they're all "in on it". Nevermind.

Come on, who would you be sure wasn't involved?

Quite a few people, in fact, most people.

You know the answer but it's too horrific for you so you find it easier to believe in scary stories about religious fanatics.

The only thing that scares me is that people that embrace these conspiracy delusions may also be allowed to vote.

You won't even bother to look up Operation Brownstone and Operation Code Angel.

Nope. Why don't you just tell me all about them.

I state my convictions and show why and how I arrived at them. Now its your turn.

My turn to what? Explain reality?




posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





Uh....anyone?


WHO!?

Name one! Your wife? Your sister? The governor? The New York Times? WHO?

Who would not think you're a nutcase, and who would you turn to for justice? Who could you be sure wouldn't kill you to shut you up? You just witnessed the deaths of thousands of innocent people, killed by your own government, and there isn't any doubt in your mind that what every major talking head, every major military personality, every government official is saying not what you witnessed.

SO WHO THE HELL CAN YOU TURN TO?

ANYONE? WHO?



You could do this to any member of the press, wait, I forgot, you think they're all "in on it". Nevermind.


Pick one! Don't chicken out and say "nevermind", give me a rational reason why what you saw on TV MUST BE TRUE.

Don't tell me "because someone would talk", because if I'd witnessed it one way, and then watched the media, government and military all saying it occurred another way, I'm pretty certain I'd get the picture to never open my trap about it.



The only thing that scares me is that people that embrace these conspiracy delusions may also be allowed to vote.


Spoken like a true propagandist. Voting is a sacred institution for true believers. Vote and your work is done, is that it? No matter that voting hasn't changed any corporate government policy in the 30 plus years I've been doing it, but next election is the one for change, right? Delusions, indeed.




Nope. Why don't you just tell me all about them.


How many times would you like to ignore it, and why wouldn't you know about those operations? Have you ever heard of Sibel Edmonds?

Didn't they tell you all about those operations on NPR-FOX-MSNBC-CBS-ABC-NBC-NYT-WaPo?

What, are your fingers painted on?




My turn to what? Explain reality?


Yes, exactly. In your own words, no scratch that, copy the words of someone else and tell me how the available evidence fits with your reality.

See if you can the available evidence and images to explain how the evidence supports the official hypothesis...it's a theory too by the way, not "reality".

Here's an example of a post that does just that.

EXAMPLE POST WHICH USES EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A HYPOTHESIS





edit on 2-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



WHO!?

Name one! Your wife? Your sister? The governor? The New York Times? WHO?

Yes. And my brothers, cousins, father. Why would they think I was a nutcase? Because I told them I may have delivered some explosives to the WTC the week before 9/11? Would I be afraid, sure. Would that stop me from doing what I think is right? No.

Pick one! Don't chicken out and say "nevermind", give me a rational reason why what you saw on TV MUST BE TRUE.

I don't understand the question. Why would it not be true? Unless you are fully involved in irrational paranoid delusions about the "mainstream media". I do not suffer from any mental health issues, ergo when I am watching the evening news and they are telling me about a warehouse fire and they show me live video I don't assume its CGI until its proven to not be CGI.

Don't tell me "because someone would talk", because if I'd witnessed it one way, and then watched the media, government and military all saying it occurred another way, I'm pretty certain I'd get the picture to never open my trap about it.

Well, that's called cowardice.

Spoken like a true propagandist. Voting is a sacred institution for true believers. Vote and your work is done, is that it? No matter that voting hasn't changed any corporate government policy in the 30 plus years I've been doing it, but next election is the one for change, right? Delusions, indeed.

Delusions indeed.

How many times would you like to ignore it, and why wouldn't you know about those operations? Have you ever heard of Sibel Edmonds?

Yes I have. Some part time employee at the FBI that claimed to be some kind of "whistleblower" and then went all over the place screaming from the rooftops that she had been "gagged". Pretty funny stuff, huh?

Didn't they tell you all about those operations on NPR-FOX-MSNBC-CBS-ABC-NBC-NYT-WaPo?

Not that I am aware of. Just give me a hint.

Yes, exactly. In your own words, no scratch that, copy the words of someone else and tell me how the available evidence fits with your reality.

Well, that's the difference between you and I. I don't decide what reality is and then go looking for evidence that supports my delusions. I let what I observe inform my world view.

See if you can the available evidence and images to explain how the evidence supports the official hypothesis...it's a theory too by the way, not "reality".

Naw, I am not going to sit here and repeat everything that is known, you are either fully aware and are engaged in some kind of little theory game, that is see who can come up with the wildest 9/11 theory and your CGI crap is a whopper, I have to admit....or.....you are so deeply invested in your own irrationality that no amount of reading material is going to dissuade you.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Thanks.

I'm sure the readers can see things more clearly now.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Why would the government go through all this trouble and complexity just for an excuse to invade Iraq or pass the Patriot Act


Because they had to get rid of the unrepairable WTC towers and destroy all the evidence housed in WTC7.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Why would the government go through all this trouble and complexity just for an excuse to invade Iraq or pass the Patriot Act when a simple plan would have acheived the exact same results with a far less risk of something going wrong?

A single Al-Quieda man setting off a dirty bomb or something along those lines would have given America all the reason they needed.

If the government asked you to create something that would mobilize the American people is 9/11 what you would come up with? There are 1000 different things that have to go perfectly right for this to be pulled off. The amount of people with knowledge is far too large for comfort.

Look at the history of government cover-ups and how successful they were.

Gulf of Tonkin, Johnson couldn't even keep one little bombing incident secret and it was leaked through the pentagon papers.

Bay of Pigs. A disaster by Kennedy that didn't involve nearly the complexity of a 9/11 operation, totally blown

Watergate, Nixon couldn't even hide 2 people stealing files yet our government is gonna pull off something involving 4 jetliners and 100's of people?

Get serious and look at the big picture. Alot of people get hung up on details and do not see the forest through the trees.



Why would they go through all this trouble when there's so much that could go wrong? They wanted an event like this to happen so they could promote their agenda of world domination. I'm sure they figured they could explain away anything that didn't go as planned and they did and still do.

This operation did not go perfectly. The details is where it's at. When you look at what happened before, during and after, it's obvious that it was a conspiracy against the United States of America, the American People, and the world. They probably thought that people would be so dumbfounded that they would believe first of all, when the planes hit the building, the impact blew off the fireproofing. That the fire from the jet fuel would somehow sustain itself at the high temperature that would melt steel. That office furniture would burn so hot that it would do the same thing. Then when it was time for the implosion, they could say the "pancaking" of the upper floors would have caused the lower portion of the towers that were still intact collapse right into their own footprint. Even though the towers were hit in two very different places, they both collapsed the same way without any resistance from the lower portions of the towers that were still intact and holding.

Another detail is the lack of video surveillance at the Pentagon. There had to be more cameras in the vicinity that would have the evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon. There was no plane wreckage.

Then they had to make sure that the fighter jets would be somewhere else that day. Performing some sort of training exercise. Of course.

Another detail is the lack of plane wreckage from Flight 93.

Building 7 was still standing when it was reported on BBC that it had collapsed. When it finally collapsed/imploded again from a supposed raging fire, it collapsed demolition style, straight down nice and even. The fire must have weakened the building supports at the same exact time in order to have it collapse so nice and evenly. It wasn't even hit by a plane.

Where are the indestructible black boxes from the planes? Why hasn't that information been released?

The investigation afterward was a joke. Of course they got rid of evidence quickly and wouldn't let anybody examine the metal from the towers. Bush would not testify by himself. He and Cheney would do it together. They didn't do it under oath where they swear to tell the truth. It was not recorded.

Larry Silverstein recently purchased the WTC and made sure to add terrorist attack to the insurance. The towers had to be overhauled because of the asbestos in the building. Silverstein said he gave the order to "pull it" on Building 7. Donald Rumsfeld said the next day at the Pentagon that a missile hit it. They didn't misspeak.

People ask if I think the U.S. Government would kill over 3,000 innocent people? I say, if it would get them what they want, YES. They're collateral damage. A small price for what they had in mind.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by zerimar65
 


of course they could....Pearl Harbor in 1941 did also happen with knowledge of the attack, weeks in advance. About 2400 men were killed.....



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
What about the fact George Bush's brother AND cousin were head of security for the WTC?

Out of all the jobs in the world,they just happen to pick security for the WTC.They had such high hopes for those two lol..A measly security job?

And they were there right up until a couple of months before 9/11(why'd they leave just before 9/11?).That's plenty of time to put some men in security so they could transfer the explosives without anyone knowing except their handpicked men!

That fact alone should be enough to charge the Bush family for the involvement of 9/11!Not to mention that thousands of other things George did,or shall I say,didn't do,on that fateful day!

Getting the explosives in a secured building is easy when you have security on your side.

What was the Arab's motive for 9/11?War for the next 11 years?Who's invading who?Bush's motives were obvious,patriot act,excuse to go to war,oil,money..some say a satanic ritual which some say would bring about the antichrist.Sound crazy?Haven't you heard the stories about the Satanists?You should research that because if you can't see the Satanism being promoted through Movies,music,cartoons and video games these days then you really are blind.

But enough about that..why is all the evidence and witnesses being ignored?There's more evidence to suggest an inside job than there is with the 19 Arabs with "box cutters" theory.(lol)
edit on 3-8-2011 by GodIsPissed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by zerimar65
 


"People ask if I think the U.S. Government would kill over 3,000 innocent people?"

They do it all the time.Over five hundred thousand innocent people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki!Those bombs weren't built for nothing!Cause a war and you have an excuse to use them!



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
What about the fact George Bush's brother AND cousin were head of security for the WTC?

And they were there right up until a couple of months before 9/11(why'd they leave just before 9/11?).That's plenty of time to put some men in security so they could transfer the explosives without anyone knowing except their handpicked men!

That fact alone should be enough to charge the Bush family for the involvement of 9/11!Not to mention that thousands of other things George did,or shall I say,didn't do,on that fateful day!

edit on 3-8-2011 by GodIsPissed because: (no reason given)


LOL.......

Umm, a couple of things...
1. Wirt Walker is not related to the Bush family.
2. Securacom was never "in charge" of security of the World Trade Center.
3. Marvin Bush was on the Board of Directors, not a measly security guard.
4. He left the company in June 2000, fifteen months before 9/11/01.
5. Your idea that the Bush family should be charged is moronic.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


He may have been wrong about a few things, but the Bush family deserving to be charged is not one of them.


Collateral Damage: US Covert Operations and Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


They were in charge of the security for the WTC!...enough said!

They left conveniently just before 9/11!..enough said!



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 



They were in charge of the security for the WTC!...enough said!


Well, you should add the little part about how they weren't in charge of security at the World Trade Center, that may help clarify the statement a little.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
reply to post by zerimar65
 


"People ask if I think the U.S. Government would kill over 3,000 innocent people?"

They do it all the time.Over five hundred thousand innocent people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki!Those bombs weren't built for nothing!Cause a war and you have an excuse to use them!


That argument means nothing. By the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki millions of lives had been wasted in WW 2. The bombs, and consequent hundred of thousands of casulaties, were intended to prevent the far greater casualties that would have been incurred by an in invasion of Japan. And they did.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

That argument means nothing. By the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki millions of lives had been wasted in WW 2. The bombs, and consequent hundred of thousands of casulaties, were intended to prevent the far greater casualties that would have been incurred by an in invasion of Japan. And they did.


You don't think they had an excuse for 911?

Dropping the bomb on Japan had nothing to do with saving lives....


It wasn't necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war but our possession and demonstration of the bomb would make the Russians more manageable in Europe. US Secretary of State James Byrnes.



We conclude that the dropping of the atomic bomb was not so much the last military act of the Second World War, as the first act of the cold diplomatic war with the Russians. Prof. P. Blackett 'The Military and Political Consequences of Atomic Energy'.


Russia declared war on Japan, America, and the allies, wanted to occupy Japan before the Russians. Japan was already finished before the bomb was dropped..


I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary... Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face." Dwight D. Eisenhower.



edit on 8/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Alfie1

That argument means nothing. By the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki millions of lives had been wasted in WW 2. The bombs, and consequent hundred of thousands of casulaties, were intended to prevent the far greater casualties that would have been incurred by an in invasion of Japan. And they did.


You don't think they had an excuse for 911?

Dropping the bomb on Japan had nothing to do with saving lives....


It wasn't necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war but our possession and demonstration of the bomb would make the Russians more manageable in Europe. US Secretary of State James Byrnes.



We conclude that the dropping of the atomic bomb was not so much the last military act of the Second World War, as the first act of the cold diplomatic war with the Russians. Prof. P. Blackett 'The Military and Political Consequences of Atomic Energy'.


Russia declared war on Japan, America, and the allies, wanted to occupy Japan before the Russians. Japan was already finished before the bomb was dropped..


I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary... Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face." Dwight D. Eisenhower.



edit on 8/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo


Quote what you like but the fact is that the invasion of Okinawa cost 62,000 plus US casualties. The estimates for an invasion of Japan ran intro miillions. The Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs, horrendous as they were, obviated the neccesity for that invasion. So lives saved, and on our side.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


"The Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs, horrendous as they were, obviated the neccesity for that invasion. So lives saved,"

How was there lives saved?Because you are assuming there would have been more deaths if they didn't drop the bomb!

I mean how could you possibly know how many lives would be lost?Wow!I can't believe people would kill hundreds of thousands on an assumption!



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
What about the fact George Bush's brother AND cousin were head of security for the WTC?


Except that is not a fact, just a truther lie. No Bush was in charge of security at the WTC, ever.

Why do truthers keep repeating the same much debunked lies?

Because that is all they have, lies!



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
reply to post by Alfie1
 


"The Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs, horrendous as they were, obviated the neccesity for that invasion. So lives saved,"

How was there lives saved?Because you are assuming there would have been more deaths if they didn't drop the bomb!

I mean how could you possibly know how many lives would be lost?Wow!I can't believe people would kill hundreds of thousands on an assumption!


Dropping those bombs saved 1000's of American lives that would have been lost in an invasion. That's good enough for me in the context of World War II.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


"truther lie"?

Don't call me a truther and don't call me a liar..k?

"Bush was on the board of directors of Securacom from 1993-2000, which maintained security for the World Trade Center Towers up until September 11, 2001."-Wikipedia

Source..
en.wikipedia.org...

Securacom(secur-a-con)buddy!

You're the one who's lying!It's common knowledge fool!



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join