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.
Originally posted by sasha17
They're trying to prtoect you buddy..
Originally posted by 2ndSEED
Thanks for the link, man I spent a good while on that site and found lots of information but I also found something startling:
Note flights 11, flight 93, flight 175 and 77 I noticed this
(11=11), (9+3=12), (1+7+5=13), (7+7=14)
(
Now whatever that means beats me just figured it was odd!!!!!
[edit on 24-2-2005 by 2ndSEED]
Originally posted by Flyer
Havent they already admitted that they decided "to bring WTC7 down" with a controlled explosion.
Originally posted by Flyer
Everyone knows it takes a long time to rig up the explosives, now they either had them in the building from when they were built or had them put in with knowledge of what was going to happen.
Originally posted by toasted
the last I heard according to the owner himself, they had the bldg "pulled"
Originally posted by toasted
funny thing is. a controlled demo , takes blueprint reading , to know where all the supports are....planning takes weeks , not hours. the implication is, they had foreknowledge.
Originally posted by nataylor
How many uncontrolled demolitions of skyscrapers by airplane impact have you seen to compare it to? Isn't it possible the two events could appear to be similar?
Originally posted by SMR
Anyone who has seen a demo,many have been shown from old casino's in Vegas,you see this WTC fall the same way.
Originally posted by truthseeka
To the person who's wondering about Silverstein...I have seen him ON VIDEO admitting that they pulled the building.
How does it fall JUST like the big towers when no plane hit it?? Why does "pull it" mean pull the firefighters out of the building? (someone here said that there was a discussion here where they established this as the intended meaning) I thought the fires were almost gone in the building?
I don't recall the name of the video, but I think that it was a PBS documentary or something like that.
And yes, he did pull out insurance policies before the "attack." Did you miss the recent court case when he awarded DOUBLE the money because they considered 9/11 2 separate attacks??
I didn't know that US buildings have planted explosives laying around in case someone decides to fly planes into them. Now who sounds like a nut job???
What I do know is that Operation Northwoods is real, PNAC is real, they had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor AND 9/11, etc.
Originally posted by hardbodyactiv
If its on video and you saw it, and your gonna make a decisive statement about it, surely you should be bothered to do your research before you post to give full details...:bnghd:
Originally posted by truthseeka
Thanks, uknumpty. But of course, any proof we offer will do no good.
You prove once again that the people who are really lacking in brain power are those who buy the official story.
Now, how long do you think it takes a professional team to rig a 50 storey building (that's 1 Canary Wharf size to you and me) with explosives in order to bring it down perfectly like we all saw? I'd say more than a few hours in a "burning and dangerous" building! I'd also like to meet the brave men/women who volunteer to do such dangerous deeds.
Originally posted by goose
Hardbody I don't think it would make sense to rig buildings with explosives ahead of times as in years just in case they have to bring the buildings down.
Originally posted by goose
I also believe the towers were rigged with hidden explosives. an employee who worked there said that at times certain areas would be off limits to everyone due to maintenance but this had never happened before to his knowledge and this went on for the last two months before the attacks.
Text
If there really is a god may there be a heaven for them all. SoS