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.

 

911, the importance of self-questionning and individual instinct

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: _BoneZ_ And you have been shown time and again that the FDNY reported massive damage to 7 and that they had a belief early on that it was going to fall. And, you've been told time and again that NIST guessed about 7's collapse. So, if I have a FDNY chief who stood at the base of the building, looked at the massive damage and decide that the building is going to fall..I am going to take him at his word over a bunch of engineers who were not there and could not see the massive damage, when they say they don't think the damage had anything to do with it.

there is another way to look at these quotes. For those who accuse others of quote picking consider that the fire department never says "the building is going to collapse entirely from top to bottom." Maybe, just maybe they were open to the possibility because of the collapses of the towers, but it is also possible they just meant that it would collapse in the same way every other steel structure until that morning had, with one or a few floors caving in, huge chunks of debris flying away, etc. the fact that the fire department, or anyone, said the building is going to "fall", "come down", "collapse", (pick your word) means not a whole lot as far as proving the collapse happened the way NIST said it did.




posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I agree with all of this. The whole open mind bit. I like the idea of this thread a lot because it takes away from the technical jibber jabber and asks people to just think and reflect which most of the regulars here have seemed to miss. Guts alone though don't always match with the evidence at hand. While instinct is useful as a motivator to seek more information, the actual information once found needs to be examined as objectively as possible.

There is one thing I've always wondered about the pentagon and I don't trust a lot of people to give me an answer that isn't more ridiculing me than answering me. People argue about the exact number of cameras and I won't open myself up to that, but it's safe to say that no matter what the number is, it was clearly not enough. With all the new funding available did the pentagon ever address this obvious security deficiency and install more cameras on the grounds?



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Not this again. When you show me pictures of plane seats and bodies from the plane I'll stop responding this way to this post. And don't link me to the massoui trial exhibits because everyone knows there are pictures of bodies and no one can say they aren't of workers from the pentagon and are definitely flight 77 passengers.
I'm not saying they weren't there; but you have nothing except testimony. No hard evidence. Please stop saying you do. Before you nitpick, you have personal effects yes. So just say that and leave all the rest out. a reply to: hellobruce



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt

the fact that the fire department, or anyone, said the building is going to "fall", "come down", "collapse", (pick your word) means not a whole lot as far as proving the collapse happened the way NIST said it did.


No. But it kind of proves that bombs weren't an absolute requirement for a collapse.



posted on Mar, 26 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt


So, you wanted someone to do a DNA identification on remains as they lie in the mess at the Pentagon and then have a smiling FBI Agent holding a sign saying, "Barbra Olson's remains" pose for a photo? Or maybe a photo of an airliner seat with an unidentified corpse still strapped to it? Is that what you really want?



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
No I don't want someone holding a sign. All I want is for him to stop saying he has pictures of bodies of the passengers of flight 77. He doesn't. That is a disrespectful and highly misleading/dishonest claim. What he has is pictures of bodies at the pentagon, period. And honestly with the "bodies strapped to plane seats" people have made claims that those kinds of photos exist so wouldn't joke about that either. a reply to: cardinalfan0596



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt

Well, the post you replied to, neither said he had photos of the passenger remains nor did it mention the interviews with the recovery crews who found bodies still strapped to what was left of their seats, so, not sure of the purpose of your rant. BUT, both do exist. At least one of the Moussouari trial photos is that of a passenger from the Flight 77 as evidenced by identifiable cabin wreckage with the body.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: St0rD there is only one thing that's crossing my mind and it is MAJOR WTF.


i got this vibe also, but when the first, then second towers fell. it was a 'NO WAY' moment. this couldn't happen from the plane impacts. impossible. i knew it immediately as i watched the events live on TV.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
The purpose of my "rant" if you want to call it that is to simply point out misinformation being supplied . ZERO of the photos have bodies next to identifiable wreckage of flight 77. He didn't mention photos of passengers still strapped to their seats but all I said was people have claimed this in the past. You also just said both photos of a body with identifiable wreckage AND a photo of a dead passenger from flight 77 still strapped to their seat do exist. I'm only doing what you yourself would do and have done if others make false claims: correct the misinformation. I just looked through the exhibit again. Neither of those types of pictures exist. No rant. Just clearing facts up. reply to: cardinalfan0596



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I believe you are absolutely right...In the end it boils down to what you think in your gut. You can read all the books in the world and you can search for all the answers you want but in the end it is all processed and decided on by your gut. If we learn to trust more the answers will come.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: JuniorDisco

originally posted by: TheBolt

the fact that the fire department, or anyone, said the building is going to "fall", "come down", "collapse", (pick your word) means not a whole lot as far as proving the collapse happened the way NIST said it did.


No. But it kind of proves that bombs weren't an absolute requirement for a collapse.



I wouldn't say it proves no explosives for the same reason it doesn't prove the collapse was expected AS IT HAPPENED. I'm actually undecided on the bomb thing, although I will say to me it seems unlikely. I wouldn't discount it based on the fire department quotes alone though. Like I said, the fire department may have expected a regular partial collapse. These quotes do not at all explain the collapse AS IT HAPPENED and therefore do not explain any cause or method of the collapse.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: St0rD
So guys, please tell me what your instinct is truly saying about 9/11. Not your rationnal limited mind, but your heart.
I wanna know if you can look at this footage (for those of you debunking all the conspiracies) and claim it to be 0% strange. 100% real-life accurate.



Intelligent and rational people base their opinions on the information they have, and their "gut" is informed by this information.

Therefore, I KNOW how the twin towers came down, it's all explained by basic physics. It's not at all a mystery, and it's not at all a conspiracy in conflict with the laws of physics. Anyone who tells you this could not happen or that it defies physics either doesn't have all the freely available information to hand to give them a rational opinion, or they are a liar.

We know how the buildings were constructed, and we know how a failure in their design led to their collapse. The only mystery (or conspiracy) here is how people still cling to this belief that those towers were deliberately brought down by anything other than a structural failure resulting from the planes hitting it.

Here's a little tip for you, if you see any so-called "architect" claiming that what happened was not possible, they are a liar, and they should probably be prevented from designing anything more than a garden shed.

There are always going to be things about such an event which don't make sense, or information missed which causes suspicion, or misinformation (a hell of a lot of it in this case) leading to warped opinions of what actually happened on that day. But, there are things that cannot be denied no matter how many "architects" or so-called "physics professors" claim otherwise. These facts and realities are what should be informing opinions, and your "instinct" and "gut opinion" should be based on this. A rational person cannot see the science and reality and then have their "instinct" tell them otherwise, this is an oxymoron.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4

originally posted by: St0rD there is only one thing that's crossing my mind and it is MAJOR WTF.


i got this vibe also, but when the first, then second towers fell. it was a 'NO WAY' moment. this couldn't happen from the plane impacts. impossible. i knew it immediately as i watched the events live on TV.


Clearly, you are wrong. It did happen, and we know how it happened. The design of the floors of the WT towers is not a secret, it is public record. Anyone with even a basic understanding of mass, impact, structural integrity and even just good old common sense can see how it happened.

This is the problem here, we have far too many people who seeming don't know the first thing about basic physics, and when they see a building like this fall they deem it to be something "impossible" when it's absolutely nothing of the sort.

It's like our ancestors seeing a meteor flying over and assuming it's a God angry at them. Ignorance is causing much of this nonsense, and in many cases it is willful.

The collapse of those towers is entirely explained by the structural failure of those buildings. There is no mystery to how those two towers collapsed.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013




The collapse of those towers is entirely explained by the structural failure of those buildings. There is no mystery to how those two towers collapsed.


Actually, it hasn't been explained at all. Except for Bazant's dodgy "piledriver" theory, no-one has explained how they fell. Even NIST stopped at the moment the collapses initiated.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: Rocker2013




The collapse of those towers is entirely explained by the structural failure of those buildings. There is no mystery to how those two towers collapsed.


Actually, it hasn't been explained at all. Except for Bazant's dodgy "piledriver" theory, no-one has explained how they fell. Even NIST stopped at the moment the collapses initiated.




Stop making up nonsense, we know the scientific explanation of how those towers fell, and claiming that no one has studied this shows just how desperate some are to ignore all evidence when it doesn't conform to their delusions.

Each floor is capable of holding up IT'S OWN WEIGHT. When one floor fails, the floor below then has to hold up ALL THE WEIGHT ABOVE. Clearly, this is not possible, even without weakening of the structure.

The above several floors crash down onto an already weakened floor, unable to support such weight, it instantly fails due to that excess weight and then crashes down onto the next, which also fails due to the massive weight, and so on - leading to the pancake effect.

This really isn't rocket surgery, it's BASIC physics.

One floor is required to hold up its own weight, not the weight of 20 (or even 1) floors above it, and certainly not when the structure of the building has been critically damaged.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: St0rD
...the idea of the US government killling - or letting being killed - his own people...


I knew the Sydney Hilton False Flag Bomber. He died recently.

One thing that stands out in the Hilton case is the way politicians were played. The perpetrators worked in policing, ASIO, media, military, etc. I haven't seen evidence of any politicians being involved except as the target to be scared into passing appropriate legislation.

With 9/11 I do feel 'The Government' is being set up as the patsy by those who wish to take over. Individuals are responsible, not a whole organisation.

Rockefellers built the towers. ExonMobil profited more than anyone else from the destruction due to the effect on the oil market.

The Rockefeller creed includes the words...


I believe that the rendering of useful service is the common duty of mankind and that only in the purifying fire of sacrifice is the dross of selfishness consumed and the greatness of the human soul set free.


The duty of commoners is to render useful service to the Rockefellers.
The dross of selfishness is those who expect something for themselves. They were encouraged into the WTC offices then consumed and a great number of human souls set free.

The towers were Rockefellers Wicker Men. And it all went horribly wrong. www.abovetopsecret.com...
Both towers were meant to detonate on impact. Both failed. Bush's face when Andy Card told him the second tower had failed to detonate shows he had knowledge. And he knew the game was up.

They're desperate and we have to pile on the pressure. Make them crack.

That's my feeling.


edit on 30 3 2015 by Kester because: paragraphs



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I thought about my instict on this but due to executive functioning filtering after all of these years an instict (for me) doesnt exist with regard to cause. What I do have a strong instict about is that it was an act of evil and karma happens, eventually. Of course people do evil things every day so we can only continue to remember we have a choice. One can choose to let the evil consume them or choose to live as they preach and leave the rest up to the universe. There isnt a darn thing we can do to bring the dead back or to erase the scars trauma left on many psyches. We can choose to trust that those responsible will be held responsible via the laws of nature. That's where I have left it.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBolt No, I said there was one photo that showed a body with identifiable cabin wreckage around it. Somehow, in your mind that became " You said there is a photo of a body strapped to a seat". Why is that?



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013




Stop making up nonsense, we know the scientific explanation of how those towers fell, and claiming that no one has studied this shows just how desperate some are to ignore all evidence when it doesn't conform to their delusions.


I'm afraid you're the one making up nonsense. NIST never explained the collapse of the buildings, only the events which supposedly led up to the collapse, and then stopped with the claim that "collapse was inevitable". The only one who's tried to explain the total collapse was Bazant, and his theory has been pretty thoroughly debunked.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
It took me a while to scroll up and reread but I see now you were referring to the picture of the body by indentifiable plane debris and then the ARTICLES referring to the pictures of bodies strapped to their seats and NOT actual pictures of this. My mistake and I do apologize. Bottom line, I never said Bruce mentioned he articles, I mentioned them musket because he constantly claims that there are pictures of the bodies of passengers of flight 77 and we both know that's a guess at best. You base this yourself on a picture of a body next to indentifiable plane wreckage. You also said "at least one" picture which either intentionally or unintentionally misleadingly suggests there are more than one. Nothing has changed for me because regardless of what you did of did not say there aren't any pictures of either. a reply to: cardinalfan0596



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join