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.

 

Regardless of your opinions of 9/11 , you need to read this.

page: 15
33
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


Care to explain and show me the content in your post or would that be my quote. There are more words in the Originally posted and replied to then you used? Not sure what you meant put I presented a POV based on his question that came from the post he linked too. Maybe you should give it a read. They are trying to state it is from the exact same place. If you look at the edges and not the middle of the picture you see where it does not line up.




posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Does the 9/11 commission report mention Tower 7?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I have a question for all those whom hold such fierce hatred for Debunkers; on this thread it would be the Truthers from what I can gather:

Are you not in your own actions attempting to Debunk the official story of 9/11? Would that not make you debunkers? I will grant you there are people whom support the official story or whom would try to debunk your views but at the core of this debate are the Truthers not out to Debunk the official story?

Why do you have such disdain for those whom debunk your stories when you are all a bunch of debunkers yourselves?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by sensible thought
 


Any of them look like this?







Yanks evidence for video fakery seems to be that, the chances of three different people, living in a large apartment building, could all own and operate a camera, are so remote as to make it imposable.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 





Oh, sorry about that.I forgot to address it. Please look at the size of the shadow in other pictures and they do not line up. Look at the edges of the pic, not the towers. Now, do they look close? yes...do they look real close? yes...if I look at them wanting to see something do I? yes...however, take a closer look and they are different angles and they do not match up. From that far away, it is an optical illusion.


I doubt your sincerity.

We have several shots showing the same perspective, and near the same point in time and the official story is that out of the millions of people, these three are some of the best known, yet they all came from the same building.

Combined with the declassified history and the stated intent of the CIA, we can surmise the company was up to its old tricks, as played on us during the Apollo missions.

It appears they deployed propagandists to capture footage, so they could be released later as "found footage" by amateurs.

Here is another example. This is a screenshot from Luc Courchesne, and a screenshot from the Naudet 911 film.

Luc Courchesne's footage was released in 2004, yet it appeared in the Naudet film in 2002. This is only possible if these two "amateurs" were sharing footage. Since the Naudet film has been proven to be a fake propaganda piece here: , both Luc's footage and every other amateur also shown on the Naudet film should be discarded as bogus.

The fact remains, there should be NO fraud, yet it is everywhere you look.





www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I´m not a believer in the no planes theory but the official story is so mired in lies that any angles demolishing it are of interest to me. The whole story was a hollywood fakery in traditional collaboration with CIA and the Pentagon.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 





Yanks evidence for video fakery seems to be that, the chances of three different people, living in a large apartment building, could all own and operate a camera, are so remote as to make it imposable.


No, that's just one of endless examples.

In order to believe their pathetic cover story, you'd have to ignore the history of the CIA's deeds and words, and also believe that out of the millions of people in the area, and the "thousands of witnesses", these three are some of the most iconic images we've been shown.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Imo , i think any sane , honest and independent person who investigated 9/11 at least one month seriously the 100% sure conclusion must be the same ...The official story is not true !! PERIOD.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by galdur
 


Care to explain and show me the content in your post or would that be my quote. There are more words in the Originally posted and replied to then you used? Not sure what you meant put I presented a POV based on his question that came from the post he linked too. Maybe you should give it a read. They are trying to state it is from the exact same place. If you look at the edges and not the middle of the picture you see where it does not line up.


Sounds like meaningless bunk to me. Identify arguments.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseeker84
 



“This report contends that not only were the buildings targets, but that specific offices within each building were the designated targets. These offices unknowingly held information which if exposed, subsequently would expose a national security secret of unimaginable magnitude. Protecting that secret was the motivation for the September 11th attacks. This report is about that national security secret: its origins and impact. The intent of the report is to provide a context for understanding the events of September 11th rather than to define exactly what happened that day. Initially, it is difficult to see a pattern to the destruction of September 11th other than the total destruction of the World Trade Center, a segment of the Pentagon, four commercial aircraft and the loss of 2,993 lives. However, if the perceived objective of the attack is re-defined from its commonly suggested ‘symbolic’ designation as either ‘a terrorist attack’ or a ‘new Pearl Harbor,’ and one begins by looking at it as purely a crime with specific objectives (as opposed to a political action), there is a compelling logic to the pattern of destruction. This article provides research into the early claims by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz that the September 11th attacks were meant as a cover-up for financial crimes being investigated by the Office of Naval Intelligence(ONI), whose offices in the Pentagon were destroyed on September 11th.

After six years of research, this report presents corroborating evidence which supports their claims, and proposes a new rationale for the September 11th attacks. In doing so, many of the anomalies – or inconvenient facts surrounding this event - take on a meaning that is consistent with the claims of Eastman et al. The hypothesis of this report is: the attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which ‘unknown’ western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation. In doing so, the attacks were justified under the cardinal rule of intelligence: “protect your resources” and consistent with a modus operandi of sacrificing lives for a greater cause. The case for detailed targeting of the attacks begins with analysis of the attack on the Pentagon. After one concludes that the targeting of the ONI office in the Pentagon was not random – and that information is presented later. – one then must ask: is it possible that the planes that hit the World Trade Center, and the bombs reported by various witnesses to have been set off inside the buildings 1, 6 and 7 and the basement of the Towers, were deliberately located to support the execution of a crime of mind-boggling proportions? In considering that question, a pattern emerges. For the crimes alleged by Eastman, Flocco, Durham and Schwarz to be successful, the vault in the basement of the World Trade Center, and its contents - less than a billion in gold, but hundreds of billions of dollars of government securities - had to be destroyed. A critical mass of brokers from the major government security brokerages in the Twin Towers had to be eliminated to create chaos in the government securities market. A situation needed to be created wherein $240 billion dollars of covert securities could be electronically “cleared” without anyone asking questions- which happened when the Federal Reserve declared an emergency and invoked its“ emergency powers.” that very afternoon.

The ongoing Federal investigations into the crimes funded by those securities needed to be ended or disrupted by destroying evidence in Buildings 6, 7 and 1.

Finally, one has to understand and demonstrate the inconceivable: that $240 billion in covert, and possibly illegal government funding could have been and were created in September of 1991. Filling in the last piece of the puzzle requires understanding 50 years of history of key financial organizations in the United States, understanding how U.S. Intelligence became a key source of their off-balance sheet accounts, and why this was sanctioned by every President since Truman.

With that, a pattern of motivation is defined which allows government leaders and intelligence operatives to ‘rationalize’ a decision to cause the death of 3,000 citizens.”.

A Question Of Motive
edit on 24-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
Imo , i think any sane , honest and independent person who investigated 9/11 at least one month seriously the 100% sure conclusion must be the same ...The official story is not true !! PERIOD.


Really ? I have looked very closely at all of the evidence truthers have asked me to look at and the only conclusion I can draw is... Truthers are not very smart PERIOD.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Certainly theres nothing wrong with debate. Thank you OP.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I wish the corruption that allowed such an abomination to become a reality would be brought to justice, but I think it was a slight of hand, while we are looking for ways to bring them down for what they did, they are planning something else. Its hurts to say that we need to focus on other things, 9/11 was a tragedy, but we can't focus on that or we will have another event equal to or worse then that day. Keep your eyes on all of the hands of the twisted system, when one hand is doing something to gather your attention, ignore that hand and look at the others.. there is often more then two hands.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by xavi1000
Imo , i think any sane , honest and independent person who investigated 9/11 at least one month seriously the 100% sure conclusion must be the same ...The official story is not true !! PERIOD.


Really ? I have looked very closely at all of the evidence truthers have asked me to look at and the only conclusion I can draw is... Truthers are not very smart PERIOD.


Nano thermite?
Building 7?

disprove those



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by requires1231
 


No because was not in scope - WTC 7 was "collateral damage" along with WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel), WTC 4,5,6
90 West St, 130 Liberty (Deutsche Bank), 140 West St (Verizon), 30 West Broadway, St Nichols Church et al

All these buildings were either destroyed or severely damaged in collapse of WTC 1 & 2

Objective was to examine intelligence failures which allowed hijackers to live and take flight training for months
without triggering response from CIA/FBI or other agencies.

The collapse of other buildings in area was covered in FEMA Building Performance Study which described in
detail damage to each building



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 
The evidence is still there for anyone that is truly interested .The Fed, World Bank,and IMF ,Trilateral Commission , Council on Foriegn Relations are all in bed together trying to move the country into the NWO . I guess that most people never tried to find if the World Trade Center had any problems that would make it not worth maintaining . Things like structural problems , settling , fatigue or unprofitable . Well ! It was an ASBESTOS hazard with asbestos dust found on desk tops . It was not profitable and the New York port Authority had to subsidize the leases .I read where the NY Port Authority applied twice to get permits to demolish the WTC and was turned down for obvious reason of asbestos being spread . To dismantle it 15Billion dollars to treat the Asbestos 200 million dollars . So Larry Silverstien leases it and insures it for 3.4 Billion with a stipulation that he would get to re build it if it gets knocked down by terrorist . Because we the people were going to bail out the insurance companies anyway he got over 7 billion dollars insurance payments. There is a lot more than the WTC going on and people better start digging into those tin hat conspiracy theories as they are deemed by most ignorant people . Some people just can't fathom such an idea that they can't trust their government .They just can't handle it . Whats even harder to handle is that the Jewish people that controls the Banking world and News world are the ones behind the decline of the USA and the world economy . They are doing the will of God as described in the Bible even though they don't know it . We are very near the Great Tribulation .



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiraCity

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by xavi1000
Imo , i think any sane , honest and independent person who investigated 9/11 at least one month seriously the 100% sure conclusion must be the same ...The official story is not true !! PERIOD.


Really ? I have looked very closely at all of the evidence truthers have asked me to look at and the only conclusion I can draw is... Truthers are not very smart PERIOD.


Nano thermite?
Building 7?

disprove those


Paint chips.
Momentum transfer.

Like I said Truthers are not very smart. PERIOD

The only thing the 911 Truth Movement has ever gotten right is the date.
edit on 24-8-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Screw your air theory... It does nothing to the structure. Your not posting to some idiot, I know construction bud . I don't fall for bs videos... I will never believe a single thing you provide. Get over it. The whole video BS. The passport idea is total bunk. What a joke.. Yea someone actually saw it laying on ground. Ok!!! Or better yet it was spotted flapping down hundreds of feet like a feather. Ahhhh,,,,, how cute.


Your either here to derail or you have no personal knowledge of your own thru experience.... That's right I don't know you , and ? So what.. I don't have to know jack about your life.. Anyone who claims the reports or videos sponsored by the federal government as FACT is beyond stupid.


So all you debunks your not going to convince us nor are we going(want) to convince you . Better yet we (especially I) will not try. But I will try to derail you. Everything you say I will crap on it like a puppy suffering from diarrhea.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Truthers please try to ignore these derailing idiots.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by T3hEn1337ened
reply to post by tpg65
 


HOLY CRAP, YOU JUST BLEW MY MIND!

No, seriously, laugh all you want, you did.

I have spent the last 11 years on one side of this topic or another, trying to figure out what the truth was with whatever information was available to me, but I've never stopped to look at the obvious. Granted, my opinion is still biased by my personal beliefs, but I started thinking about 9/11 in a totally new way, specifically:

What was the motivation for 9/11?

What happened and what did the people involved in 9/11 expect to happen?
Well, if there were explosives in the towers, then the people who caused 9/11 expected it to happen exactly like it did. However, let's say that 9/11 was caused by some random terrorists who didn't plant bombs in the towers or use thermate to implode them. What did they do, and what did they expect to come of it?

They left their homes in the middle east, trained for, what - months, years, even - to learn how to fly a plane? And then crashed two planes into the twin towers and a third into the pentagon just because they hate America. They had to deal with airport security, all the passengers on the plane, the pilot and copilot, and the chance that there might be air marshals on board, not to mention the risks of carrying out a long-term, high-risk plot. Once they successfully hijacked the planes, then they had to fly them with expert skills into two towers that, according to conventional logic, should not have even fallen down.

I'm sure most of us have heard how you can make a basic bomb with the supplies from your local hardware store, so why go to all the trouble? They could've just as easily strapped bombs to their chests, walked into the world trade center lobby, and set them off. They could have (God forbid) crashed the planes into nuclear plants. They could have done just as much damage, or more, with FAR less effort, so why this?

I realize that I'm providing more questions than answers, but I think the motivation of the suspects is a good place to start with any investigation. Call them "crazy terrorists" if you like, but it seems to me that you'd have to have a pretty functional mind to come up with a plan that complex, and you'd have to KNOW it was going to work if you were going to try and pull it off. Not to mention that a mind that could come up with a plan as complex as that, could also see all the inherent problems with it, and understand that it had a high risk of failure and that there were easier possibilities out there.

BONUS POINTS: Rather than just agreeing or arguing with me, try and come up with a reason why the official story makes sense, based on the terrorists' logic. Could they have possibly known that the buildings would fall? Were they just stupid and lucky? Maybe they were trying to make a point that didn't necessarily include knocking over buildings.




You make a great point!!!. This aspect is obviously avoided by the ignorant hermits on ATS.




top topics



 
33
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join