9/11 Bombshell: Methodical Deception -- Rebekah Roth

a reply to: Salander

Um, once again, the Bank had a regularly scheduled gold transfer going on that morning. That was only announced 14 years ago.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

Um, once again, the Bank had a regularly scheduled gold transfer going on that morning. That was only announced 14 years ago.

Why do we have to try so hard to convince the truthers, bro?

They have zero evidence of anything. So why not ignore them? Why is it so important to prove them wrong?

You're making them think they have an actual point. When you keep arguing with them, it makes it worse.

All these connections they're making are irrelevant. I'm sure I could connect it to Kevin Bacon.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I'm not sure why. Maybe because I take the Deny Ignorance thing way too seriously..

a reply to: Ridhya

You gotta learn to read man. It clearly says "boring airplane food"

I thought of boring plane food which makes sense, but it's not clear though. The "o" is very tiny, like a hyphen. The entire doodle is cryptic filled with red herrings. B-ring, boring, bring, bthing ? They're all clues, including Freud.

a reply to: jude11



Thanks for sharing!

Just finished the first vid, checking out the second now.
Didn't find anything I couldn't agree upon yet.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

The WTC Towers were built to withstand the impact of a B-707 at the slower approach speed and they never envision the buildings being struck by a B-767 at over 500 mph, which then stripped the buildings of their fire protection.

After the impacts, structural loads were redistributed, which placed added stress on the remaining steel columns, but they too, became weakened from the fire and shortly afterward, the rest became history when the WTC Towers collapsed.

The collapse of each of the WTC Towers began where they were struck by the aircraft, which simply means that any explosives or thermite planted in that area would have been rendered useless because in order for explosives or thermite to be effective they be firmly attached to the steel columns or they will be useless as was the case when a huge bomb failed to bring down WTC1 in 1993 because the bomb was not attached to steel columns and if explosives were firmly attached to steel columns and detonated, they explosions would have seen signals down through the steel columns and into the ground where the signals would be detected by seismic monitors in the area, yet no such signals were detected. The seismic monitors detected the aircraft impacts and the collapse of the WTC buildings, but no signals from demo explosions and that is very significant. We know there were no explosives placed in the area of impacts because there were no secondary explosions when the aircraft struck the WTC buildings and that is further proof there were no explosives in the building. In fact, there are no secondary demo explosions evident in the videos as the WTC buildings collapsed, which further degrades the claim that explosives were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Lastly, there was no way the WTC buildings could have been properly prepared for explosive demolition and not attract a lot of unwanted attention and needless to say, demo explosions make a lot of noise that can be heard for miles and yet, there is not a peep of demo explosions in any WTC video. Add to the fact that no evidence of demo explosives was ever found at ground zero. In other words, the claim that explosives took out the WTC buildings was false because that claim was fabricated as were claims of space beam weapon, nukes, and mini-nuke weapons and cruise missiles strikes.[

Somehow this topic has diverged completely from the original information in the videos and returned to classic 9/11 debates. Which is, of course, everyone's prerogative. But if at all possible, could anyone offer an answer to these questions, which I will reiterate for the third or fourth time now?

1) Does anyone have a good assessment of the credibility Creative Loafing, the alternative news publication that originally broke the story of the DEA report?

2) Do we have a way to verify the authenticity of the DEA report?

3) IS there evidence in said DEA report or elsewhere which specifically links these particular Gelatin members (those photographed in WTC with the boxes in question) to the suspected ex-Mossad servicemen with training in explosives?

I just really, really want to get to the bottom of this specific issue if at all possible, as it seems critical to the entire hypothesis in the videos posted.

Peace.

a reply to: skyeagle409

The WTC Towers were built to withstand the impact of a B-707 at the slower approach speed and they never envision the buildings being struck by a B-767 at over 500 mph, which then stripped the buildings of their fire protection.

Only the floors where it struck. More lies from you

After the impacts, structural loads were redistributed, which placed added stress on the remaining steel columns, but they too, became weakened from the fire and shortly afterward

Right, including the vertical steel core columns for the entire height of the building. All of them. More lies

After the impacts, structural loads were redistributed, which placed added stress on the remaining steel columns, but they too, became weakened from the fire and shortly afterward

Word for word from the NIST report. But no mention of all the core columns being rendered useless at the same time.

Lastly, there was no way the WTC buildings could have been properly prepared for explosive demolition and not attract a lot of unwanted attention.

False. The elevators via ACE elevator co. and the Gelatin "mossad" art students housed in the impact site for 4-years.

Don't bother responding, my answers are for those who might still be swayed by your lies.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I will just mention that WTC had been undergoing a serious amount of maintenance before 9/11 even before Silverstein took over, including a complete overhaul of the lift shaft for months (which I don't believe actually took place). Many of the top floors (as can be seen in the pictures of the Israeli art students) were gutted and mainly empty. The lift "upgrade" was a more than suitable cover for the planting of the necessary explosives and would not be noticed by anyone other than those planting them. If you as a contractor are contracted on a multi million pound deal to upgrade a list system and at the same time told to plant explosives I'm sure you would question it, however, if that lift company was "in bed with" the person that owned the building and you were told the explosives were needed as a) a security measure b) a safety measure or c) just in case demolition was necessary I'm sure you wouldn't argue further.

I think it should also be mentioned that after the 1993 bomb, many of the tenants left WTC and a lot of floors were in fact empty and never relet. Again when Silverstein raised rents many gave notice too. The whole building was a white elephant and people were unwilling to work there. The Port Authority records show the decline in tenancies after 1993 and before. There is no way Silverstein would not have known about the asbestos nor the fact the building was losing money hand over fist, therefore why agree to lease it? He clearly didn't want more tenants as he raised the rents to ridiculous amounts. I believe the same as many, it was a convenient way of getting rid of the buildings for the more valuable land underneath.

a reply to: FlySolo

Only the floors where it struck. More lies from you

What do you think was supporting the floors?

Right, including the vertical steel core columns for the entire height of the building. All of them. More lies

it is apparent that you have no idea about construction techniques.

False. The elevators via ACE elevator co. and the Gelatin "mossad" art students housed in the impact site for 4-years.

Reality is not with you and you have no understanding what it would take to demolish a steel frame building and I will challenge you to prove me wrong with evidence.

Your post is indicative of a nice landing. Next time lower your landing gear.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

www.nytimes.com/1998/05/31/realestate/commercial-property-downtown-at-the-world-trade-center-things-are-looking-up.html 95% occupancy. Yep, it was positively empty. Then, in February of 2001, the PA put out a release saying that only 250,000 square feet of the 10 million square feet was unoccupied.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: skyeagle409

I will just mention that WTC had been undergoing a serious amount of maintenance before 9/11 even before Silverstein took over, including a complete overhaul of the lift shaft for months (which I don't believe actually took place). Many of the top floors (as can be seen in the pictures of the Israeli art students) were gutted and mainly empty.

In explosive demolition, the whole building has to be properly pre-weakened and prepared, not just a small section. As mentioned earlier, there were no secondary explosions when the aircraft struck nor were there secondary explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed and data from seismic monitors proved that no demo explosives were detonated as the WTC buildings collapsed, which also explains why no demo explosive hardware was ever found at ground zero.

It has been determined the Israelis had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. Just another example of how unfounded conspiracy theories are fabricated.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

And yes, Silverstein was well aware of the asbestos. The costs were estimated to be 200 million over a decade, rather small cost when the complex is bringing in about a half billion a year.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Well as most evidence from ground zero was shipped off to china immediately and no crime scene investigation carried out I don't suppose they would find anything! Does it not bother you in the slightest that even the members of the 9/11 Commission themselves felt they were "set up to fail"? That they were given inadequate funding? That they were given only half the facts? If you believe (as you clearly do) that the OS story is true and real then surely you should at least consider why the Commission was treated in such a manner and why the members feel the way they do.

Well I've contributed all I can and this thread has now stagnated with both sides as usual being right. Neither I nor anyone can change a persons' belief system but a true theorist should approach all things with an open mind and a willingness to delve deeper and at least try and apply common sense and logic which I hope I do

Some people on here are so sad.
They take the word of some random lady, who is selling her book as gospel.

Did anybody bother to check out any of her information? NO!

Half way through that 8 minute video (4:58) she is ranting about BB-18 being explosive detonators.
Do a Fricken web search for BB-18!

It's a floor mounted electrical box support for metal stud walls.
Cooper B Line BB-18
Do ya think that maybe workers were installing electrical boxes 18 inches off the floor in those remodeled walls?

This place has some lazy narelywells who swallow up BS crap without so much as a raised eyebrow.

a reply to: samkent

If you actually read all the posts and not just a select few you will see that quite a number of us have checked into aspects of the womans' video and claims

a reply to: samkent

Correct. IMO opinion the boxes (which are all empty) only serve the purpose of hiding what they are doing from everybody else on the floor.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

That is what normally happens. A new book, video, whatever, comes out and people new to ATS or the 9/11 "truth" movement jump all over it, and every single time, the book or video is based on the same, old, bad information that is easily dealt with using honest research or critical thinking. And, it runs on for page after page until posters like you get tired of being shown reality. Then, they leave and the thread dies.....until the next book or video.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Again that has already been brought up..by myself in fact. I will repeat that it was stated that these boxes were empty and used as room dividers and shielding for the art students so no-one could see what they were doing..remember they weren't really supposed to be there so they made false walls from boxes nothing really sinister about it just odd

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Its frustrating and annoying that the only time it seems "new" evidence comes to light is when someone has something to sell. I've watched the video twice, first I was quite surprised then looked a bit deeper and wasn't that surprised anymore lol. Even more frustrating are people that jump into a thread part way through having not bothered to read it all. No matter how long a thread is, if you haven't the time or patience to read it, absorb what's already been said before commenting then seriously what value have your opinions when you don't have all the facts?