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.

 

My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

page: 11
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
 





WTC 7 Free Fall, Wall Street Insider Trading, Eyewitness testimony of expolosions (including FDNY,NYPD) mysterious deaths of Barry Jennings et. al., Missing trillions, Norad Stand Down.

These have all been answered on here many times. You just haven't been here to read them.

Scan the thread titles for a few pages and I'm sure you will see the same topics come up every couple of months.




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 




Here are some cars located a block and a half north of WTC7... the gas tanks did not explode, and the door handles are missing, which seems to be the case with most of the 1400 vehicles. What is it about jet fuel that can remove door handles?


Links from drjudywood.com is your first problem in understanding 911.

Here is a link with a better explanation.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
 





WTC 7 Free Fall, Wall Street Insider Trading, Eyewitness testimony of expolosions (including FDNY,NYPD) mysterious deaths of Barry Jennings et. al., Missing trillions, Norad Stand Down.

These have all been answered on here many times. You just haven't been here to read them.

Scan the thread titles for a few pages and I'm sure you will see the same topics come up every couple of months.


I have seen the threads and it seems like more of the same. On one side you have people who are not afraid to think critically and take history into consideration (False Flags date back 100's of years) then there are those who try to nullify claims by referencing a 9/11 commission report that isn't even backed up by the very people who carried out the investigation.

Out of curiosity, whats your version of questions "being answered"? Is it some form of government entity/organization telling you what they believe or is it individuals conducting independent studies, using free thought to reach a provable conclusion?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Not quite. Every time I read the utter tripe of you and your shill buddies it disgusts me and makes me want to vomit. No sane and rational person could possibly observe all these anomalies about 911 and continue with the charade that you endlessly propogate. The endless co-incidences are being posted yet again. But that doesn't seem to matter to the Co-Incidence Theorist. It's exactly as if you are ignoring the book to debunk each individual chapter one at a time. That may work with idiots but not with people who have learned to think critically.


Nice flowery prose, I must admit...but I notice you're conspicuously avoiding my questions. If this lasers from outer space were capable of blowing up skyscrapers and burning vehicles to a crisp then why weren't the people in the vicinity vaporised? Anything that would fry a building would certainly fry the firefighter standing next to the building, and simply blaming everything you can't readily explain on imaginary armies of sinister secret agents planted everywhere is being rather childish.

Seriously, if you can't even get your conspiracy stories past a nobody like me then how do you expect to get them past any 9/11 investigation you might get in the future?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
lasers from outer space

This is a prime example of why I don't take you seriously.

Good day.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath


The insurers paid up because the courts told them to pay Silverstein.


But not the full amount. He wanted a 7 billion payout and the settlement was in the region of 4.5 billion.

In addition Silverstein argued that he didn't need the high levels of coverage. They were demanded by his lenders. Why would he try to lower his payment amount if he knew the property would be destroyed and intended to profit?


The insurance cover for the $96 million purchase of the WTC was in excess of $2.3 billion with a specialist cover for acts of terrorism taken out shortly before 9/11.


I can find no evidence that the terrorism cover was taken out shortly before 9/11. What I can find evidence for is a payout under a terrorism clause after the 1993 bombing, so it was covered eight years before. Which isn't exactly "shortly". I'm not even sure that specific terrorism cover per se existed before 9/11 for things like the WTC.






The insurers Swiss Re strongly objected paying Silverstein a penny because they smelled a rat.


Swiss Re were one of five main insurers. You say they objected because they "smelled a rat" but they completely failed to bring this up in court? Why? If some people on the internet find it so effortless to prove that something is suspect here then why can't an enormously rich multinational company with 7 billion riding on it? Why did they not even try, despite smelling a rat? It makes no sense at all.



The Silverstein lawyers countered with the argument that since there were two airplanes that struck the building, the insurers should pay the full insurance cover twice. Silverstein got a further payment for Building 7 which he "pulled".


You're just repeating what happened. It's not suspicious at all. Rich man wants more money in financial payout? Hardly groundbreaking, and certainly not evidence of complicity.

As for WTC 7, you failed to address my other point. Why did he admit to it on TV? Is he literally an idiot?



Are you now paying more for you car and household insurance? You now know why.


You mischaracterise the whole episode. Silverstein did not win the court battle and so no, I'm not paying much more.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
This is a prime example of why I don't take you seriously.

Good day.


What do you mean? You're the one quoting Dr. Judy Wood by posting links to her "lasers from outer space" website, not me...or do you really not know Judy Wood is the one who invented the whole "Lasers from outer space" bit to begin with?

I'm not asking for your mother's bra size, dude. I'm asking you to explain your own conspiracy claims- how did these buildings and vehicles get fried but not the people standing next to them? It's an honest question and it deserves an honest answer, and if you can't get past that simple question then none of your "amazingly obvious" observations are even worth the paper a Kim Kardashian marriage certificate is printed on.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I'm not asking you to give me an exact rundown of how your imagined power elite interacts. I'm merely suggesting you try to account for it in some manner that's not completely illogical.

Take your first paragraph. It doesn't even make sense within itself. How can a "Club" member be untouchable yet simultaneously be blackmailed by another member? That means they are 'touchable' doesn't it?

"Imagined power elite"?

Are you serious?

Has there ever been, in your mind, any organized crime in this world?

Ever hear of the term, "made man"?

And in amongst that organized crime, have there ever been any warring factions?

Seriously dude, your situation is critical.


edit on 8-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)


You misunderstand. And amusingly your worldview appears to be sourced mainly from films, which doesn't surprise me. How are organised criminal factions remotely related to the authorities? Are you saying that the people who run, say, the Camorra are also involved with high street banks? Because that'll be news to Paolo di Lauro when he hears about it from his jail cell.

Explain to me how a member of a power elite can be untouchable and touchable at the same time. And try to explain why Larry can blackmail his club friends:

"Larry was letting his "Club" friends know that he'd better get his money or some other stuff might "slip"." -- You, earlier in the thread

And yet his friends can't blackmail him by threatening to release information about him blowing up towers and scamming insurance.

Go on, have a go. You're the guy who made this stuff up, so it should at least conform to some basic internal logic. Or you could just frame another insult and pretend that if you ignore them the basic flaws in your thinking will magically disappear.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I'm asking you to explain your own conspiracy claims


Good luck with that.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Not quite. Every time I read the utter tripe of you and your shill buddies it disgusts me and makes me want to vomit. No sane and rational person could possibly observe all these anomalies about 911 and continue with the charade that you endlessly propogate. The endless co-incidences are being posted yet again. But that doesn't seem to matter to the Co-Incidence Theorist. It's exactly as if you are ignoring the book to debunk each individual chapter one at a time. That may work with idiots but not with people who have learned to think critically.


Nice flowery prose, I must admit...but I notice you're conspicuously avoiding my questions. If this lasers from outer space were capable of blowing up skyscrapers and burning vehicles to a crisp then why weren't the people in the vicinity vaporised? Anything that would fry a building would certainly fry the firefighter standing next to the building, and simply blaming everything you can't readily explain on imaginary armies of sinister secret agents planted everywhere is being rather childish.

Seriously, if you can't even get your conspiracy stories past a nobody like me then how do you expect to get them past any 9/11 investigation you might get in the future?


You seriously are the most unliked dude on this forum, I'm really starting to see this. I'm pretty sure if you weren't in this forum we'd be able to connect the dots a hell of a lot quicker without your usual "damn food conspiracy website" comments as well as the "put on your tin foil hat" comments.

Here's how you operate bro:

Random poster: Maybe the hijackers had no idea it was a suicide mission. Maybe someone set the auto pilot to the coordinates and the planes just hit their destined targets

You: Oh my god you're on to something!

Me: Do you think the hijackers knew about the 9/11 war games and exercises?

You: That is ridiculous and is nearly impossible to believe. blah blah blah damn fool conspiracy websites, nut job, tin foil hat ,blah blah blah

^---This is a brief summary of that thread.


Just go away dude, seriously

.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I'm asking you to explain your own conspiracy claims


Good luck with that.


Anyone taking bets that if he does answer, he'll just use the "armies of sinister secret agents" crutch again? Apparently, the gov't can plant hidden demolitions in an occupied building, get eyewittnesses to say it was a plane they saw hit the Pentagon, create a number of fake engineering reports, and make two plus two equal five, all by using armies of sinister secret agents.

"Armies of sinister secret agents" is turning out to be the duct tape of the conspiracy theory world- it fixes every broken thing you can imaine as long as noone minds how horrible looking the end result appears.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


I don't see it like that at all. SimontheMagus made a series of very general assertions about how one cannot but think 9/11 is a conspiracy, with no effort made to back any of it up. Dave responded with specific questions about the poster's previous arguments.

I see one poster trying to avoid answering questions about his ideas by making vague, unsupported pronouncements and insults. And another attempting to discuss specifics. If you think that the former is a fearless searcher for Truth then good luck to you, but you're wrong.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 





You seriously are the most unliked dude on this forum, I'm really starting to see this. I'm pretty sure if you weren't in this forum we'd be able to connect the dots a hell of a lot quicker without your usual "damn food conspiracy website" comments as well as the "put on your tin foil hat" comments.


Attacking your opponent is a cover up for your lack of proof.

I find Dave to be logical and consistant.
The truthers position seems to change with what ever Youtube video is current.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I'm asking you to explain your own conspiracy claims


Good luck with that.


Anyone taking bets that if he does answer, he'll just use the "armies of sinister secret agents" crutch again? Apparently, the gov't can plant hidden demolitions in an occupied building, get eyewittnesses to say it was a plane they saw hit the Pentagon, create a number of fake engineering reports, and make two plus two equal five, all by using armies of sinister secret agents.

"Armies of sinister secret agents" is turning out to be the duct tape of the conspiracy theory world- it fixes every broken thing you can imaine as long as noone minds how horrible looking the end result appears.


Yeah, but don't forget that due to something called 'compartmentalisation' none of those secret agents are actually 'in on it'. There are in fact only 20 real conspirators.

Never mind that if somebody asked you to plant a bomb in the WTC, and you subsequently watched it blow up, or your boss asked you to go out and swear blind that you just saw an aeroplane hit the Pentagon, then you might consider that something was a bit fishy. You might even come forward. And yet oddly enough nobody has.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

You seriously are the most unliked dude on this forum, I'm really starting to see this. I'm pretty sure if you weren't in this forum we'd be able to connect the dots a hell of a lot quicker without your usual "damn food conspiracy website" comments as well as the "put on your tin foil hat" comments.


I have never, not once, said "put on your tin foil hat". My position from day one is that you're being suckered by those damned fool conspiracy web sites pushing every goofball conspiracy from "hologram planes" to "the WTC were hollow buildings" to make a fast buck off the truther crowd. You're not crazy and you're certainly not stupid. You're just being taken advantage of by internet con artists and you don't realize it.

...and if I'm the most unliked dude on this forum then why do I have 7,384 flags and you have, well, none whatsoever?


Here's how you operate bro:

Random poster: Maybe the hijackers had no idea it was a suicide mission. Maybe someone set the auto pilot to the coordinates and the planes just hit their destined targets

You: Oh my god you're on to something!

Me: Do you think the hijackers knew about the 9/11 war games and exercises?

You: That is ridiculous and is nearly impossible to believe. blah blah blah damn fool conspiracy websites, nut job, tin foil hat ,blah blah blah


You dind't even get THAT right. My point on that thread was that it didn't make any difference either way whether the hijackers knew there were war games or not. With the way the events, procedures and confusion unfolded, the attack would have still played out the same way it did whether there were wargames or not. If you're going to quote me then at least quote me correctly.

...but seeing that you chose to intercede on this conversation, let me ask YOU- how is it that all these buildings and vehicles were burned to a crisp but not the firefighters standing next to them? This other guy is avoiding the question like vampires avoid sunlight, so maybe you can answer it.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
What do you mean? You're the one quoting Dr. Judy Wood by posting links to her "lasers from outer space" website, not me...or do you really not know Judy Wood is the one who invented the whole "Lasers from outer space" bit to begin with?

This the third (and last time) I'm going to say this. You obviously cannot read. I said that I linked to the site for the photos. The photos don't lie, and the photos themselves don't suggest "laser beams from outer space". There are other sites with the same photos, but you would undoubtedly find something wrong with any of them and then try to discredit the photos, which is ridiculous, but being ridiculous is no deterrent for you.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Yeah, but don't forget that due to something called 'compartmentalisation' none of those secret agents are actually 'in on it'. There are in fact only 20 real conspirators.

Never mind that if somebody asked you to plant a bomb in the WTC, and you subsequently watched it blow up, or your boss asked you to go out and swear blind that you just saw an aeroplane hit the Pentagon, then you might consider that something was a bit fishy. You might even come forward. And yet oddly enough nobody has.


Well, I've been told there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for that. Armies of sinister secret agents are working to make sure all those other sinister secret agents are keeping quiet. Star Trek's "red shirts" have nothing on those guys in their expendability.

Apologies to the moderators; I know this is way off topic, but there are times that all you can do is shake your head and laugh. We now return to our regularly scheduled program...of armies of sinister secret agents plotting to take over the world.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
This the third (and last time) I'm going to say this. You obviously cannot read. I said that I linked to the site for the photos. The photos don't lie, and the photos themselves don't suggest "laser beams from outer space". There are other sites with the same photos, but you would undoubtedly find something wrong with any of them and then try to discredit the photos, which is ridiculous, but being ridiculous is no deterrent for you.



...so if the photos don't suggest lasers from outer space then why is Judy Wood posting them on her website as evidence for lasers from outer space? Yes I know they can be found on other websites...namely, the ones that support the "lasers from outer space" claim. Be honest, you didn't even read what was on the website you got these photos from, did you?

Not that it matters, becuase the argument still applies to super duper nanothermite as well- how does thermite explain how these vehicles were burned but not the firefighters standing next to them?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You dind't even get THAT right. My point on that thread was that it didn't make any difference either way whether the hijackers knew there were war games or not. With the way the events, procedures and confusion unfolded, the attack would have still played out the same way it did whether there were wargames or not. If you're going to quote me then at least quote me correctly.


I don't give a rat's ass what your point was dude. The random poster in that thread completely speculated that the hijackers might have not known it was a suicide mission. He didn't offer any evidence to back it up and you immediately agreed with him. I offer complete speculation, which I provided evidence for and you completely shot it down at the first sight of it. You battled me and eventually questionined how I knew that the military can track planes without a transponder on. [I'm guessing the military can only track aircrafts that make contact with them. If Russia ever decided to bomb us, I hope they contact the military first and let them know] Bias much?


...but seeing that you chose to intercede on this conversation, let me ask YOU- how is it that all these buildings and vehicles were burned to a crisp but not the firefighters standing next to them? This other guy is avoiding the question like vampires avoid sunlight, so maybe you can answer it.


I'm not supporting his theory, I'm just totally sick of how you treat truthers vs. those on your side. You come off as the most pompous a-hole on planet Earth and it really does get annoying. I can't say you don't have any valid points, because you do. You've opened my eyes to things I never thought about. But the way you express yourself and your feelings about people in search of the truth, well it's just hostile and rude


edit on 8-5-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


Awww, did "same crap, different day" hurt your little feelings?


Not remotely. As I said, I find you amusing, not hurtful. And certainly not convincing or insightful.

By the way, you seem to have created a topic in this thread where you constantly rhetorically ask for what caused "extraordinary" damage at Ground Zero. You imply that it's something suspicious and you even link to a website that advances answers. And yet when someone critiques that answer or asks you to explain your thinking you insult them and refuse to reply.

It's not terribly compelling. And it makes you look like a cultist.




top topics



 
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join