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.

 

if the muslim threat of terrorism is so real then why..

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: muckleduck

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: muckleduck

I don't believe you. You haven't demonstrated any competency in physics in this thread. You haven't worked through the math which is staring you in the face saying you are wrong and just dismiss it because it doesn't agree with you. That isn't college educated. That is internet research educated, which is lol worthy. Looking at your grammar, you haven't even demonstrated a high school level of knowledge actually.



i dont doubt the equations will come out correct in the answer, what u dont seem to grasp is he is GUESSING at the variables.


Yes he is, but he is being conservative on the values. Using numbers that are less than what they really are. Then he explains at the end of his post that a REAL calculation to determine the time it took the towers to fall would take WEEKS of advanced computer simulations to get right. A 1 minute youtube video isn't going to sum that up.



this doesnt even stand as proof of anything, just makes me more embarassed for you.


Says the guy with his foot in his mouth.

a minute video sums it up actually.

a lighter object cannot destory a heavier object, i already gave u an example

imagine the top of the tower is an empty can of coke, and drop it onto a an that is full, the top will just bounce off the full can , it doenst drive it into the ground causing the juice to explode everywhere.

that is an oversimplified version just for you. which ive explained twice now and u still dont grasp it.


let this be the end of ths physics topic, if u want to discuss physics join my anti grav theory thread, otherwise stop posting about it , this is about the war on "terror", nothing else.

edit on 22-12-2014 by muckleduck because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: muckleduck

And another thing...why don't they target policy makers, LEO, and officials here?

I realise there are more of the public to choose from, but in the final analysis people at a fruit and veg market, or browsing a shopping centre are hardly going to get the decision makers to change policy is it.

Taking out half the cabinet would have more effects from a terrorists point of view, either from a propaganda view or perhaps forcing policy changes, as would blowing up council buildings, Police stations, corporate boards, weapons makers and other high profile targets with suicide bombers etc...but they don't do that...i wonder why not?

It's not like a ring of security people is going to be able to stop a suicide bombers blast from 10 feet away, and it's not like the bomber is going to be terribly concerned for his or her own safety is it!

I agree with the OP..the Terrorists are very conspicuous by their absence...and their choice of target.



yea the ira never failed to let us know that they were still around, still do from time to time with their bomb scares, which are usually in the vicinity of british army or government buildings, just to remind us.

the ira werre a real threat and comparing them to the islamic fundamentals isnt even close, the ira were shootin down choppers, having battles with sas units driving thru the streets of ireland, roadside bombing our troop transport so we couldnt travel by air or land on irish soil, they beat us, or them i should say, i dont consider myself british, scotland till i die.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: muckleduck. I know exactly the guy you are talking about. His "middle name" is different from the 9/11 hijacker. The 9/11 hijacker, is still dead.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: muckleduck. Utter rubbish. The airspace over the United States is nowhere near the most secure.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: muckleduck. Utter rubbish. The airspace over the United States is nowhere near the most secure.



do u really think 3 planes all got thru on same day, i believe there was a 4th that crashed into a field aswell.

america only scrambled 1 jet to intercept.

why on this day was there no jets ready to fly?

if the russians came over with their bombers ud be wrecked!

so if u have the largest defence budget in the world yet cant defend against 4 attacks on the same day by a few guys with nothing more than boxcutters" lol if some guy hijacked a plane and all they had was little knives, theyd be chokin on their own blood b4 they reach the cockpit.
edit on 22-12-2014 by muckleduck because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: muckleduck What is funny, is how little factual knowledge you have about the buildings. And no, 9/11 was not the first , nor the last, time a steel building has died from fire.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: muckleduck What is funny, is how little factual knowledge you have about the buildings. And no, 9/11 was not the first , nor the last, time a steel building has died from fire.



it is, its well known fact that those buildings were the only ones to fall from fire, explain how a few lobby fires in wtc 7 makes it fall into a neat pile to be collected for scrap? same with the twin towers, all the scrap was picked up asap and moved out b4 investigation, wonder why?

isnt it a coincidence that these buildings were built to withstand 2 plane impacts each?

then they get insured against terrorism and funnily enough a terrorist attack happens.


what about all the inside trading?


coindicidence tht the budget files were destroyed at the pentagon along with god knows what else?

common sense tells me theres more to it than a few guys with box cutters bieng angry at the world.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: muckleduck What is funny, is how little factual knowledge you have about the buildings. And no, 9/11 was not the first , nor the last, time a steel building has died from fire.



name one other building that has a steel frame that has collapsed in such a manner? and i dont want videos of controlled demolitions.

fire alone.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: muckleduck We had 14, count them 14, armed fighter planes on alert for the continental United States. And they were primed to look at threats coming from over the oceans. We had no missiles, no gun emplacements, just those 14 fighters. And four of them were scrambled that day. Some Air Guard units managed to get some unarmed jets in the air, that might have stopped Flight 93 by ramming it over DC.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: muckleduck We had 14, count them 14, armed fighter planes on alert for the continental United States. And they were primed to look at threats coming from over the oceans. We had no missiles, no gun emplacements, just those 14 fighters. And four of them were scrambled that day. Some Air Guard units managed to get some unarmed jets in the air, that might have stopped Flight 93 by ramming it over DC.



didnt only 1 jet respond though? or make visual contact at least, id hardly feel safe if i was you when the real enemies start coming.

better pray that iron dome works

edit on 22-12-2014 by muckleduck because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: muckleduck Seventeen steel framed floors of the Madrid Windsor Tower collapsed from fire alone. Only the massive concrete transfer slab below those floors arrested what engineers said would have been a complete collapse. As for the ESB, it had interior load bearing walls that stopped the B-25 friends M penetrating too far into the structure. The Towers had nothing like that in their design.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Dont know if anyone has already posted it, but before the BBC turned into the Ministry of Truth they ran a documentary called The Power of Nightmares.

It is a three part documentary on how the UK government essentialy fabricated the notion of "terrorism" to suit its own political agenda i.e illegal invasions of countries that had oil.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: muckleduck Seventeen steel framed floors of the Madrid Windsor Tower collapsed from fire alone. Only the massive concrete transfer slab below those floors arrested what engineers said would have been a complete collapse. As for the ESB, it had interior load bearing walls that stopped the B-25 friends M penetrating too far into the structure. The Towers had nothing like that in their design.



what u fail to mention is that fire burned for almost 24 hours and the fct tht the building had no sprinkler system, not even comparable, and guess what it still didnt collapse so ur point is far from proven, nfact u just proved mine, thanks.

the structure of the building still stood after 24 hours of burning with no sprinkler system, the twin towers both fall to the ground within hours of the fire burnning, and the peak temperatures were only short period of time in the towers, nowhere near hot enough to melt or weakend the steel enough to make it crumble into itself, 3 times in 1 day.


edit on 22-12-2014 by muckleduck because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
heres wiki on the empre state building plane impact en.wikipedia.org...

why did that also not crumble to the ground? it should of going by american physics.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: muckleduck. WTC 7, had a twenty story hole carved out of its middle by the collapse of WTC 1, and also had the bottom ten floors of the southwest corner demolished. It was far for just a few lobby fires. The buildings had business damage/interruption insurance, NOT "terrorism" insurance. The same type of policies that paid out after the 93 bombing. And, while the Pentagon damage may have affected the Army's budget records, it did not affect the Air Force, Navy or the Departmental accounting departments ( and do not bring up the 2.3 trillion, it will just make you look that much more uninformed)



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: muckleduck. No, a total of 7 jets got airborne, and those were too late to do anything. We shut down the majority of our air defenses in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: muckleduck. The collapsed portion, fell after four hours. Try reading the investigation of it.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: muckleduck. The ESB, has a masonary facade and interior load bearing walls. That is why comparing the ESB to the WTC only shows how little you actually know about the subject. Well, then there is the mosquito of a B-25 being compared to the eagle of a 767...



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: muckleduck. WTC 7, had a twenty story hole carved out of its middle by the collapse of WTC 1, and also had the bottom ten floors of the southwest corner demolished. It was far for just a few lobby fires. The buildings had business damage/interruption insurance, NOT "terrorism" insurance. The same type of policies that paid out after the 93 bombing. And, while the Pentagon damage may have affected the Army's budget records, it did not affect the Air Force, Navy or the Departmental accounting departments ( and do not bring up the 2.3 trillion, it will just make you look that much more uninformed)



the official reason given for wtc 7 collapse is lobby fires, uninformed? not so much.

even still do u think thats how a building falls naturally?!?! if so this debate is over.

u have the largest defence budget but cant defend yourselves against passenger planes, ironic.

the towers were build to withstand 2 plane impacts EACH and still stand, look at empire state building, they put out the fire, rebuilt and went back to work within days almost, so dont play the joker mate.

mybe you should do a little research into these buildings other than what g.w bush told u.



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: muckleduck. The ESB, has a masonary facade and interior load bearing walls. That is why comparing the ESB to the WTC only shows how little you actually know about the subject. Well, then there is the mosquito of a B-25 being compared to the eagle of a 767...


aviation fuel still burns at the same temperature, derp.

it would still cause the steel to weaken going by american physics.

so why didnt it collapse to the ground? answer please.

no one outside of the usa believes the drivel your government pu in that official story, anyone with the intellegence of a 5 yr old can work out all the discrepeancies. and most fo the evidence points towards your own administration, not to the middle east.

edit on 22-12-2014 by muckleduck because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join