Financial Proof and More that 9/11 was an Inside Job!

reply to post by OnTheFelt

First of all the official flight manifests have never been released by the FBI, that's a fu$#ing fact, chief! So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

The manifests were obtained by author Terry McDermott through the FOIA. And Im not a chief, never have been.

Do you not find it odd that only 1,465 of the estimated 2,790 people reported killed in the attacks have been identified, but they have been able to identify 10 of the terrorists?

No, the article says that TWO had been identified and that TEN total DNA profiles had been provided to be used in the identification process.

Ok...just so were clear, what you're telling me is that 19 devout radical muslims, tasked with committing the most elaborate attack on US soil, which by the way is partially because they curse our "Western" way of life, but they decide to hit several strip bars days before the attacks, use their credit cards, get drunk, do coc aine, and bed whores

You obviously havent bothered to either read the links or do the research. Living as a "Westerner" is something that they are told to do in training camps. And yes, devout Muslims will do all of those things when they are out of their homelands.

Stop the Lies!

You should direct that towards the people who perpetuate the "truth" movement.

I served 18 years, nearly my entire adult life (by the way you already knew this because you stated that me having a TS, I should get my facts straight).

And I am on year 22........btw why are you discussing your clearance on the internet anyway?

This is why I'm doing this, I lost 5 members in my squad because of 9/11

What's your purpose in all this? I gave you my reason, the least you can do is give me yours. Or is that classified and you're getting paid?

My purpose in this......

I spent two or three days after 9/11 trying to find out if friends of mine, who were on duty at the Pentagon that day, had survived. One, was in Bethesda for three days for the injuries he suffered. The others, spent time helping remove bodies and wreckage from the building. They know exactly what hit the Pentagon that day (and yes, it was Flight 77). Since then, they have had to change their phone numbers several times because "truther" a**holes would not stop pestering them.

Another friend of mine lost a family member in WTC 2 that day. And I was privileged enough to meet a couple members of FDNY who survived that day, and they both agree that there were not any demolition charges that day. (yes their statements ARE public record and no, I am not going to tell you their names, although I will say that I have posted the links to their statements a few times on ATS).

Ah yes, once again the accusation that I am getting paid for posting on here......

Yes, my paycheck does come from the United States Government. I am an avionics technician on block 30 F-16 C/D's.

So, back to the original question, why do I do this? I am tired of seeing the lies of the so-called "truth" movement. Especially when, every day new posters "find" the truth movement and get sucked in by the lies.

I think it's just a shame that benefiting financially from a catastrophe isn't a crime.

I often wonder about Mr Larry Silverstein's huge insurance payout and why the insurance company didn't use the Force Majeure clause.

Insurance companies don't usually have to pay for Force Majeure events like Acts of God, Acts of War and catastrophic events that are unforeseeable.

All the insurance company would have had to do is find one person that was forewarned of flying that day or forewarned in any way that an attack was coming and they wouldn't have had to pay. There are plenty of rumours stating that people were warned and didn't the CIA warn Condaleeza Rice two months before the attacks? That aside, Bush himself described the attacks as "acts of war", so why didn't the insurance company use that?

Did they really pay him 3.55 billion dollars without trying to use the Force Majeure clause?

I'm sure they must have tried that before and even on claims for a hell of a lot less!

9-11 was soooo an inside job. our gov was to some extent invovled. what is scary is the thought of what the next false flag will be? maybe a mysterious missing nuke? i read that fema was in chicago for some strange reason with paperwork or something for mass grave site in case of a disaster. hmmmmm makes you think

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


your hearsay has less mojo than say, CIT's interviews of witnesses who use their real names and faces on video as they testify what they saw.

i could easily say on the web, "my friend knows a guy who planned 9/11, and it was done with holograms and space beams". your words have no more weight than mine in a virtual environment.

the REAL truth is found in cross-correlating all of the available scientific, historical, financial and political information. connecting those dots CLEARLY points to a CONSPIRATORIAL INSIDE JOB.

and, those who REFUSE to see it, may be 'in on it'.

reply to post by OnTheFelt


I thik there is lots of evidence for the official report to be incorrect, or false or whatever

but

when you say things like this

admitted to “pulling” WTC 7;

it doesnt help..anyone with a brain can see the guy was saying to pull the firefighters..it doesnt even make sense for him to say "pull it" in regards to demolishing the building...how could they just "pull it"? unless the firefighters were the ones who destroyed it..

see what im saying? it doesnt help the argument...

you have done some good work here, i just dont want to see all of it go to waste because some of it not being rational...

the stuff you present to strangers has to be bullet proof...no holes...like some of the science stuff and possibly financial stuff..those are your best bets, leave the speculating out of it...other than that..good job

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
..it doesnt even make sense for him to say "pull it" in regards to demolishing the building...how could they just "pull it"? unless the firefighters were the ones who destroyed it..

When I first saw that clip of him saying "pull it" I immediately jumped to the same conclusion that he meant pull the building, but I don't think so now. I think the trouble with the clip as well is that we only ever see him say that line. What did he say before it, what were they talking about? Has anyone seen the full clip or have a transcript? I think that line has now been taken out of context because people want to believe he was talking about pulling the building.

Also, if he had in fact been talking about pulling the building, wouldn't that have interfered with his insurance claim on the other buildings? Couldn't they have said, "Well you admitted to pulling 7, how do we know you didn't pull 1 & 2?" Larry Silverstein is a successful man and successful people are usually intelligent. I don't think he would have made such a huge mistake as admitting to demolish WTC 7 on national TV.

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
reply to post by OnTheFelt

 

I thik there is lots of evidence for the official report to be incorrect, or false or whatever

but

when you say things like this

admitted to “pulling” WTC 7;

it doesnt help..anyone with a brain can see the guy was saying to pull the firefighters..it doesnt even make sense for him to say "pull it" in regards to demolishing the building...how could they just "pull it"? unless the firefighters were the ones who destroyed it..

see what im saying? it doesnt help the argument...

you have done some good work here, i just dont want to see all of it go to waste because some of it not being rational...

the stuff you present to strangers has to be bullet proof...no holes...like some of the science stuff and possibly financial stuff..those are your best bets, leave the speculating out of it...other than that..good job

Thanks for coming on here open_eyeballs,

You bring up a very interesting point, and I in no way am here to say you're wrong....but....when you really think about it, who talks like that. Why wouldn't he have just said, "get them out of there" or how about "evacuate". Those seem way more logical to me.

Interstingly engough, the term "pull it" is actually a demolition term, so that's why it is so damning in my opinion.

And remember...immediately after he said "pull it", he then goes on to say the Fire Commander made the decision to "pull it".

Now here's why I think "pull it" as blow it up is exactly what he meant. It's called a Freudian slip, and if you recall, or maybe you weren't aware, he's not the only one that's slipped with the tongue.

1. Tim Roemer, former 9/11 commissioner - states in an interview that a miissle hit the pentagon. (A missle??? I'm sorry but missle & plane isn't a tongue twister)

2. George Bush, in a speech outside the white house states that bombs were planted inside WTC towers by "operatives" to prevent people in the higher floors from escaping. (Bombs in the WTC buildings? Excuse me are you serious Mr. Bush. Please point to me in the Warren Commission oops I mean 9/11 Commision report where it states that...because to the rest of the free world, we were told that structural damage and fires caused by the jet fuel caused the collapse.)

3. Donald Rumsfeld, in a speech to a Army unit in Mosul says that we had to shoot down "flight 93". (Shot down flight 93, are you serious Mr. Rumsfeld? Wait I thought the passengers rushed the cabin and stopped the terrorists from hitting the White house...I think it was "Let's Roll)



4. George Bush, in a speech tells the audience that he saw the 1st plane hit the towers from a TV. (Mr. President, wait a minute, how is that possible. Didn't you know that the footage of the 1st plane hitting the tower was not released till 9/12...Were you watching somehting on closed circuit TV filmed by the "5 dancing Jews")



So really, is it that impossible. You see when you are a lier and you keep getting asked to recount details that are fabricated, your mind will forget and "boom" you slip up and say some very telling stuff.

Just my opinion, but trust me I'm not the only one who feels this way.



[edit on 18-7-2009 by OnTheFelt]

[edit on 18-7-2009 by OnTheFelt]

Originally posted by Mark_Amy

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
..it doesnt even make sense for him to say "pull it" in regards to demolishing the building...how could they just "pull it"? unless the firefighters were the ones who destroyed it..

When I first saw that clip of him saying "pull it" I immediately jumped to the same conclusion that he meant pull the building, but I don't think so now. I think the trouble with the clip as well is that we only ever see him say that line. What did he say before it, what were they talking about? Has anyone seen the full clip or have a transcript? I think that line has now been taken out of context because people want to believe he was talking about pulling the building.

Also, if he had in fact been talking about pulling the building, wouldn't that have interfered with his insurance claim on the other buildings? Couldn't they have said, "Well you admitted to pulling 7, how do we know you didn't pull 1 & 2?" Larry Silverstein is a successful man and successful people are usually intelligent. I don't think he would have made such a huge mistake as admitting to demolish WTC 7 on national TV.

Mark_Amy,

Please see my response to the other poster. I have to disagree with you and hopefully my reply to the other poster explains why.

But you're right, he F'd up big time with this interview and seriously ask some of the other members on ATS who knows about demolition. Trust me, "pull it" is unmistakable for what it's meaning is.

And of course the Fire fighters didn't plant the explosives, but think about it, he probably never even had that conversation, see he made a statement which was half truth/half lie. The fact that they were mixed together is meaningless, his brain wanted to lie, but his mouth betrayed him.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by OnTheFelt]

Yes the people issued Puts on major airlines and other commodities in essences of 10X the amount of the normal number of Puts for the month leading up to 9/11 on a global scale.

reply to post by OnTheFelt


I hear what you are saying, but its still speculation...

Im saying for the 9/11 truth movement to get anywhere there needs to be discipline within the entire movement/ organization...

everyone who wishes to speak up about it needs to be on the same page...with info...with facts...with decorum...with respect. otherwise people will not take the subject seriously.

its all about focus, essentially. if the truth is the most important, then facts must be the reference at all times. throwing opinions and speculation will get no one anywhere. thats why the whole tactic of non sense is used..."they", whomever they are, will throw out wild claims and then attribute that to the "truthers"...

see what im sayin?

like all those guys that used to go around screaming through their bull horns tryin shove it down peoples throat....that is not the way to get peoples attention...while I understand their effort, they did not help the cause...it needs to be taken in slowly with hard overwhelming evidence that can not be denied...

i dont know what happened that day or who exactly is behind it, but i do know there is some pretty damming evidence out there indicating either some sort of negligence at the least or some sort of complicite at the worst...

OnTheFelt, I do hear what you're saying and to be honest I've been backwards and forwards with this myself. I just find it so hard to believe he would actually say it on TV! I just wish we knew the sentence or couple of sentences before it for total context.

Actually, now I look and I found these quotes from whatreallyhappened.com:
whatreallyhappened.com...

Larry Silverstein says:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Yes, that is rather condemning! I think anyone with English as their native language would use "them" to describe a group of people.

Here is another quote from I think when they pulled down building 6 in December:
"We're getting ready to pull Building 6" ... "We had to be very careful how we demolished Building 6..."

and from firemen just before WTC 7 came down:
"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."

hmmmmmm........

reply to post by open_eyeballs


Once again, I agree with you. Speculating something that in the end turns out to be false could be very damning to any hope for a new investigation.

But by the same token, also remember that were not the judge and jury, it is only our job to present a case, it's not our job to decipher the evidence just compile and present.

Please believe me when I tell you, that I have put in the research on this, and guess what I'm still learning...and I will also admit to you that there were "notions" or "speculations" that I believed a couple of years ago, that I don't believe now.

But in this instance, I truly think it's justified and here's another reason why:

It's all about the man, Larry Silverstein, where he came from, what he represents, and who he's in bed with. This guy is connected at the highest level, he is in the "know".

Research him and I promise you will come to the same conclusion.


I'm telling you it's undeniable...and I also will tell you that I lived in NYC while in a military position after 9/11 and if I told you some of the testimonials I've heard first hand...I don't think you'd believe me.

Like for instance:

Word on the Street
Apparently even some New York City school kids knew something was coming down. In the October 2002 issue of Insight Magazine, journalist Jeffrey Scott Shapiro reported that a high school freshman at New Utrecht High School in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, may have known in advance that the World Trade Center would be attacked. When this claim came to Shapiro's attention, he followed up on the story by talking to the boy's teacher, Antoinette DiLorenzo. During a lesson a week before the attacks, DiLorenzo noticed the boy, a Palestinian, looking out a window. "What are you looking at?" she asked. The boy's response, in hindsight, was chilling: "Do you see those two buildings?" he asked while pointing at the World Trade Center. "They won't be standing there next week."

This was not the only incident like this that apparently occurred in the days before the attacks. Shapiro also reported that a 6th grade student at another school passed on a similar warning to his teacher on September 10, 2001. "Essentially, he warned her to stay away from lower Manhattan because something bad was going to happen," said Sgt. Edgar Martinez, deputy director of police services for the Jersey City Police Department, according to Shapiro. Yet another boy had heard of the impending attacks and warned his classmates. "He warned them not to ride any city buses because he had been told at his mosque the week before to stay off all public transportation for a while," said one NYPD officer quoted by Shapiro. "He said it wouldn't be safe."

If kids on the streets of New York knew something was about to happen, why didn't the feds know? The answer is that they did know, but bureaucratic incompetence, or worse, prevented them from taking action.

That story is also true, but you never hear about it. I got chills down my spine when I found out about this in 2002, firsthand! As you can guess my surprise when I saw that someone in the media actually reported this.

News Article

Originally posted by OnTheFelt
The boy's response, in hindsight, was chilling: "Do you see those two buildings?" he asked while pointing at the World Trade Center. "They won't be standing there next week."

Wow! That is chilling!

See it's things like this I don't get. Why wasn't the teacher telling all the media this and why didn't we see the boy interviewed on TV? Can all the mainstream media really suppress all this stuff? Maybe no one would take it seriously at the time because it had only just happened and because he was so young. I guess if it comes out too long after the fact then people just don't believe it.

That is creepy!

reply to post by OnTheFelt

It's all about the man, Larry Silverstein, where he came from, what he represents, and who he's in bed with. This guy is connected at the highest level, he is in the "know".

Research him and I promise you will come to the same conclusion.

I have had deep suspicions about Silverstein for the same reasons you have mentioned.

To me a huge red flag was the fact how he came about purchasing the buildings. Im sure you are aware, but the whole purchasing it from the public and what not..Way to fishy for it to be just coincidence..in my opinion.

For the thread, the information you presented was great including the comment by Silverstein, but I am more referring to people who wish to make known that their are many questions regarding the 9/11 commission report and how imperitive it is for a new independent investigation. Most dont have a great deal of knowledge abou tthe incident. Many simply go off those movies that were produced...I forget the names of them now, but there were three versions of the same movie basically.

While some of it was a good step in the right direction, other info came out to be not so corroborative and may have been tweaked for them to make a buck or two on it.

Anyway, for referencing, your post is excellent. But again, when it comes to distributing information to the general public; condensed scientifically verifiable facts need to be the main focus for clarity issues with those that are not well aware of the extenuating circumstances.

I know we agree, so I will leave it at that. Thanks again for the most excellent thread!

What upsets me most about all of this - whether you believe that 9/11 was an inside job or not (and I believe it was) is the way the American public and Government have treated the first respondants to this disaster.

I am absolutely dismayed and DISGUSTED that 50,000 + people who are ill because they worked at ground zero or even LIVED and worked in the surrounding areas - have no support or compensation from the US health system.

Most of these people were your HEROS and yet a 9/11 protester who wants answers for his Fireman father's death is called an 'asshole' by TV anchorman?? Shameful behaviour regardless of what you believe about 9/11. That Fireman went to his DEATH to save others.

The fact is, the people that answered the call are dying. The very people who were praised and literally worshipped for their service at ground zero. Abusing the people who were there, who worked tirelessly in foul conditions and were told it was safe, who want nothing but to be heard and to be compensated for their illness, is criminal. The government should be down on it's knees thanking selfless workers like these, not shunning them because it seems like an admission of guilt if they give them money and care.

It is a FACT that these people are ill BECAUSE of 9/11. It is also a FACT (both reported on most networks and in writing) that EPA said it was SAFE to work there!!!! If nothing else is ever done to bring people to justice re 9/11 - these poor souls and their families NEED to be taken care of. To not do this goes against everything the USA and the western world stands for.

It is the government and general public of the US who turn a blind eye to these brave now-ill people and their plight should be the ones in prison.

Originally posted by swinggal
What upsets me most about all of this - whether you believe that 9/11 was an inside job or not (and I believe it was) is the way the American public and Government have treated the first respondants to this disaster.

I am absolutely dismayed and DISGUSTED that 50,000 + people who are ill because they worked at ground zero or even LIVED and worked in the surrounding areas - have no support or compensation from the US health system.

Most of these people were your HEROS and yet a 9/11 protester who wants answers for his Fireman father's death is called an 'asshole' by TV anchorman?? Shameful behaviour regardless of what you believe about 9/11. That Fireman went to his DEATH to save others.

The fact is, the people that answered the call are dying. The very people who were praised and literally worshipped for their service at ground zero. Abusing the people who were there, who worked tirelessly in foul conditions and were told it was safe, who want nothing but to be heard and to be compensated for their illness, is criminal. The government should be down on it's knees thanking selfless workers like these, not shunning them because it seems like an admission of guilt if they give them money and care.

It is a FACT that these people are ill BECAUSE of 9/11. It is also a FACT (both reported on most networks and in writing) that EPA said it was SAFE to work there!!!! If nothing else is ever done to bring people to justice re 9/11 - these poor souls and their families NEED to be taken care of. To not do this goes against everything the USA and the western world stands for.

It is the government and general public of the US who turn a blind eye to these brave now-ill people and their plight should be the ones in prison.

Swingal,

QUOTED FOR TRUTH!!!

This is the most important aspect of all! It is an absolute outrage and an insult to those with any kind of soul. We lost so many good people that day and now because of these greedy shills, we will lose more!

Here is a great thread addressing this very thing....BAILOUTS For THEM! But 9/11 Rescue Workers can FEND for Themselves!

[edit on 19-7-2009 by OnTheFelt]

Thanks felt. I'm with you. I'm from another country and this all astounds an disgusts me! The rest of the world saw what these men and woman were doing - as it happened. We cried along with you at the horror of 9/11, I know I did. Aussies died there too. But from the first WEEK I knew something was fishy.

Anyone who dares to come into this awesome thread to try and downplay the plight of the rescue workers and those that live in the area of ground zero that have been afflicted by illness - you are not a patriot. You do not believe in freedom and justice for all. Instead of saying 'it's all hokum' go and help do something about the things that we KNOW as facts - the 9/11 illness. Why don't you all go out and fund-raise for these guys or something!!!

I was in NYC on holiday in the US in 2006 and I was even there on September 11. I visited ground zero and finally understood the scale of the event. On the 10th, I was outside the NYC Library and I chatted to a 9/11 activist who was handing out flyers on the street. I told him that if I wasn't leaving at 9am on the 11th for Philly by train - that I would have been there with everyone else to protest - and I'm an Aussie for goodness sake!!

As we spoke, he was hurtled all types of abuse. The man there with him was a fireman who was now ill. We chatted for half an hour and he was amazed that I was on his side and wasn't even American and that I knew so much about 9/11. He too copped abuse from passers by in the street...until he said to one person, "Were you there? Were you told it was OK to work there and that the air was safe? I'm dying and a tonne of my buddies were killed in Tower 1. What did YOU do to help??"

I found myself getting angry too and thinking, "Why is everyone so abusive to people to those they called 'heros' 5 years before for wanting to know the truth for their families and friends? It makes no sense!" How is it insulting to the memory of those who perished to want to help those men and women who helped afterwards??

You tell me how patriotic it is. Yeah, that's right. The government just needs to admit...for once...that they fukked up big time, so that 50,000 people can get the care they need.

Reply to Swampfox46_1999,

No, YOU are a complete snip
I am using your word here.( I have asked the mode to remove your post so, if they will not, I am free to use it as well).

Just because you sweep the floor where they store F16s you seem to take some superior attitude ?
What you state is a pack of lies. You just cannot admit that YOUR GOVERNMENT CAUSED 911. The same government that gives you your paycheck.

How about your quote ''they both agree that there were not any demolition charges that day''.
Oh, lets forget the videos where you can plainly hear the explosions taking place shall we. Just because your friends told you, then that is OK. How could we possibly doubt something that your friends told you....

As a 'technician', perhaps when you have had you eyes tested, you could look over this photo. Look at it carefully. It is supposed to show a building pancaking... not exploding.... pancaking....


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/93fc16c41bcf.jpg[/atsimg]
snip


Mod Note: Please Review this link - Civility and Decorum are Required

[Mod Edit -snip]

[edit on 19/7/2009 by Sauron]

reply to post by mumblyjoe

Just because you sweep the floor where they store F16s you seem to take some superior attitude ?

Never said I was superior, I was asked a question and I answered it with the facts. If you feel inferior, that is not my problem.

Oh, lets forget the videos where you can plainly hear the explosions taking place shall we. Just because your friends told you, then that is OK. How could we possibly doubt something that your friends told you....

Then I respectfully suggest that you do some more research into building fires. There are almost ALWAYS explosions of some sort in a fully involved building fire. Does not mean there were any explosives involved. But im sure you are right...a professional firefighter wouldnt know the difference.

As a 'technician', perhaps when you have had you eyes tested, you could look over this photo. Look at it carefully. It is supposed to show a building pancaking... not exploding.... pancaking

Got them tested last month 20/20 vision, both eyes. The picture shows a heavily damaged building collapsing and all the energy involved in that. Your issue is that you are looking at a picture of an event that had never happened prior to that day, and you are trying to relate it to something you know.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 19-7-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

So Swamp_sweeper,

Now you say THERE WERE explosions. So when you said ''THERE WERE NO explosions'', what you meant was that THERE WERE explosions.... I can now see why you get so confused and I can also understand why you find it so difficult to think for yourself.

Because the ''Official Story'' is so ridiculous, you are trying to suggest that I cannot reconcile what I see.... I don't have any problem reconciling what I see. I can see the bleedin=obvious.

If you think for a second that your loving government would not do this, may I refer you to the point highlighted by nickspm in the thread 'the end of 911 Conspiracy and the beginning of 911 Common Knowledge'.

NICKSPM:

''The first attack on the WTC buildings that killed 8 people was also an inside job.
An FBI informer named Emad Salem provided explosives to people that were being targeted in a terrorism sting operation by the government. Every step of the way this FBI informer was checking in with the FBI and reminding them that the people being framed actually had REAL EXPLOSIVES. At every step the FBI told the informer to go along with the operation. It was carried out and people died. ''

I hope you fully realise that you are attempting to defending MASS MURDERERS even though they write your paycheck. One day, and that may not be too far away because of things coming to light recently, I hope you can live with that.

Anyway, I have kept you long enough from your broom...