Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Follow the Money

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
This is so interesting.

9/11: The Official "Unofficial" Conspiracy Theory
www.youtube.com...

But how could airliners flown by humans hit the towers that accurately?

Were the airliners switched with robot planes?

psik




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
commented for later watching



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


no way! This had nothing at all to do with money. It was a dozen arabs armed with box cutters intending to simply cause massive damage to America which they hated. It was done by ahab the arab and then when Obama found Osama he killed him and dumped his body into the ocean. There was no cover up, no controlled demo, no fraud or crime committed in any way shape or form. It was those damn jehaddies and nothing else! Definitely not no al-CIA-duhh!!!


And one more thing. Before you go to bed be sure to check under your bed cuz there might be a geehadist hiding under there, ready to get you, the same way they got everyone during 9/11!




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
George Bush and the Muslims made an agreement. The whole plot of 9/11 was to build more 7-Elevens in America In exchange for oil. Thats why when you see 7-Eleven you know that there is a Gas station near by. 7/11=9/11 and vice versa



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Fantastic video, OP, thanks for sharing it!

In any crime of magnitude, one must always follow the money. This particular web of evil and lies is so tangled and high-up, it boggles the mind.

If our fascist government could do something so heinous as murder thousands of its own citizens in cold blood, on purpose, to cover its financial crimes, one can only imagine what the next false flag will be. I shudder to think of it.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 



I am sick of these comparisons to the Empire State Building impact.

What was the weight of that plane?

What was the velocity of that plane? How did the woman Edna Centron get to the opening? What was she walking on? Was the aircraft an airliner? If the planes impacted at certain spots to take out particular companies then how could human pilots do it?

The entire physics profession not discussing the "center of mass" of the tilted top portion of the south tower for ELEVEN YEARS is more interesting than aircraft impacts however. It says something about the science/academic establishment that goes beyond 9/11. The Laws of Physics are more important than 9/11.

The total destruction of the buildings must be explained regardless of the aircraft. I am not getting on the no planes merry-go-round.

psik



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 




But how could airliners flown by humans hit the towers that accurately?

Easy the Japanese set the bar.
Even Americans upset withthe IRS found it easy to fly a plane into a building.

As a side note the highway patrol tells you not to stare at a disabled car on the side of the road because you are more likely to drive into it.

You have yo wonder how many times other citizens have used Microsoft Fight Sim to fly into the towers.
There's no mention of those people saying it's impossible.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Watch the video and see what it says about the companies in the building. If all you are talking about is the buildings then you are not addressing the point I was making.

And I read a book about Kamikaze pilots. They were trained to do that and practiced it with SMALL HIGHLY MANEUVERABLE PLANES.

psik



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I have not watched this video, sorry but I am not got to spend half an hour watching something that based on what the OP has said suggests there were not plains/victims.

I hate these “no plane” theories because of one very simple reason; they are an insult to the victims and the dead with very little proof to back anything up. My uncle was on business in New York on 9/11 he personally witnessed the second plane hit the tower. There are hundreds of families who lost loved ones on those planes to say there were no planes is to say these people did not exist, furthermore it says that the grieving families are someway implicated in all of this. It’s simply hurtful nonsense without a single scrape of evidence to back it up.

I wish people would think of the families before they start dabbling in armature pseudoscience and revisionist history, because that is what most of you are writing, your ignorance would be funny if it were not so hurtful to the families.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I have not watched this video, sorry but I am not got to spend half an hour watching something that based on what the OP has said suggests there were not plains/victims.

I hate these “no plane” theories because of one very simple reason; they are an insult to the victims and the dead with very little proof to back anything up. My uncle was on business in New York on 9/11 he personally witnessed the second plane hit the tower. There are hundreds of families who lost loved ones on those planes to say there were no planes is to say these people did not exist, furthermore it says that the grieving families are someway implicated in all of this. It’s simply hurtful nonsense without a single scrape of evidence to back it up.

I wish people would think of the families before they start dabbling in armature pseudoscience and revisionist history, because that is what most of you are writing, your ignorance would be funny if it were not so hurtful to the families.


I totally agree. Sometimes I wish I could talk to these nut-jobs in person but so far I haven't met a single person in real life that believe this crap.
edit on 11-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 




but so far I haven't met a single person in real life that believe this crap.

Because it's an 'internet' conspiracy.
Shut down the web and Richard Gage would have to get a real job.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by maxella1
 




but so far I haven't met a single person in real life that believe this crap.

Because it's an 'internet' conspiracy.
Shut down the web and Richard Gage would have to get a real job.



I don't think Gage has anything to do with this theory.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
 

Because it's an 'internet' conspiracy.
Shut down the web and Richard Gage would have to get a real job.



OR, in the case of Korey Rowe (co-producer of that "Loose Change" flick), resort to selling heroin. Dunno about anyone else, but when I follow the money all I keep coming to are a bunch of sleazy conspiracy peddlers pushing abject paranoia over the internet for their own financial gain...except for that French guy who invented the "no plane hit the Pentagon" hoax. He's pushing abject paranoia through his books.

That reminds me...has anyone heard anything more about the Korey Rowe arrest?
edit on 12-11-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




That reminds me...has anyone heard anything more about the Korey Rowe arrest?

I think they are painting his shorts with nano thermite as we speak.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I always enjoy reading your posts especially after you take a little vacation.

Have you tried following the real money Dave?



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I didn't say anything about NO PLANES. I was commenting on the accuracy of the hits relative to the locations of the companies in the buildings discussed in the video.

psik



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
reply to post by NWOwned
 



I am sick of these comparisons to the Empire State Building impact.

What was the weight of that plane?

What was the velocity of that plane? How did the woman Edna Centron get to the opening? What was she walking on? Was the aircraft an airliner? If the planes impacted at certain spots to take out particular companies then how could human pilots do it?

The entire physics profession not discussing the "center of mass" of the tilted top portion of the south tower for ELEVEN YEARS is more interesting than aircraft impacts however. It says something about the science/academic establishment that goes beyond 9/11. The Laws of Physics are more important than 9/11.

The total destruction of the buildings must be explained regardless of the aircraft. I am not getting on the no planes merry-go-round.

psik


I only used the Empire State crash to illustrate a few points, namely, planes (whatever size) tend to break up when they come into contact with large hard things like skyscrapers. That and they tend to leave evidence of themselves right in the gash. The Empire State plane did, it was just a small bomber lost in the fog. That guy who crashed into the tax building, his small plane was hanging out of the hole.

On the 9/11 North Tower hit you have no visible plane wreckage in the gash, which I think is at least strange because it was a much bigger plane than the bomber or the tax guy's plane and therefore would leave more "pieces".

That's the first thing.

The second thing is I think the Empire State crash was an accident and not a stealthy conspiracy.

So the record of it in what pictures exist are probably what they are. I'm not sure the same can be said of 9/11.

As for Edna, she was standing on the bottom floor where there was a floor. The bottom red horizontal line on my North Tower pic (above), there is clearly a floor running along there. Could she stand a floor above her at the wall? The floor above that? How about the middle of the gash at about the center?

Don't toss off an opinion, look at the photograph.

You're a physics science guy.... Let me ask you then, you think all those floor 'edges' should be missing and what? Be further in? How far? beyond the light and line of sight? Should the floor edges have been destroyed or pushed in so far we can't even see them in a decent pic? Apply your wizard physics to that why don't you, because the physics you been touting so far (even if I suspect it's right) isn't getting you or the 9/11 truth and real investigation angle anywhere.

Seriously, you think that the 'plane' went all the way in there, left no big pieces of itself hanging out the hole and destroyed all (5-ish) the concrete floor edges so far into the building we can't even see them? Is that what you think?

Without leaving a single visible piece of itself?

Look at the photo, on the left, no left wing went completely in there, there is still debris from the building in the way!

Then you wonder how human pilots could be so accurate all while acknowledging 'they' (possible real perps) likely had access to the very floors that were 'impacted'.

You know what I'm sick of? I'm sick of making a sound reasonable argument based on visual video evidence that gets dismissed without being either acknowledged or debunked.

That's what I am sick of.

It doesn't matter to me if a real 767 went into the North Tower or not. It's not any kind of CIA spoon fed religion to me. I'm just looking carefully at the shred of evidence they gave us and was broadcast and I'm saying like, "Look, I know the story is that a plane went in there and Naudet by some miracle
caught it on camera, but when I look at that clip I can see, I can tell, I can SHOW that what it really shows is that no 767 crashed in there."

This is not my belief, it's not my opinion, it's a sound argument based on an actual careful examination of the evidence we have and were presented.

Rather than tell me what you're sick of, how bout you explain to me how the Naudet clip looks like it does if a 767 did crash in there. Because what it actually shows is that one didn't. I don't care what people believe or what people think I believe, the "evidence" shows clearly that no 767 crashed in there. That's what it shows.

So, there's no plane hanging out the hole, floor edges are pushed back and destroyed, all while obstructions still would prevent the whole plane from entering, and when we examine the Naudet clip really closely it actually shows that no 767 crashed in there.

Plus, forget the Empire State building crash, the Naudet clip and the South Tower crash videos do no resemble each other. Don't you think they should? Even a little? Same size planes, same design buildings etc. etc.

I don't care what anyone believes that's a summary of what is shown.


Cheers
edit on 13-11-2012 by NWOwned because: structure



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned
How did the woman Edna Centron get to the opening?



I'm not a fan of the no plane theory but this has always been a question in my mind as well. The OSers have always said the molten steel pouring out of the towers was the aluminum from the plane melting then flowing through the offices in which all these items burned up and dripped out of the tower. Meanwhile this lady is just chilling in the exact spot where the plane hit where these alleged raging fires are weakening steel and completely melting airplanes.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I always enjoy reading your posts especially after you take a little vacation.

Have you tried following the real money Dave?


Yep, and so far the only ones I'm seeing actually making money these days is Apple. The gov't is hemmoraging money on the war. Silverstein is hemmoraging money on rebuilding the WTC. Dunno how much money Bush makes on his memoirs and speakign engagements but I doubt he's going to be buying too many yachts off of it.

What's your point?





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join