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.

 

Top OS contradictions that silence it's proponents

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

This thread is a Gish Gallop. Funny because I usually don't see this arguing tactic used outside of Creationist debates.




posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

What would you like to hear? That the Headquarters of the United States Military is right next to a major airport and had no air defenses? And that the majority of training was to counter threats coming from across the ocean?



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard



It just seems strange to me, how everything played out, and how all the Trillions of tax dollars we throw at the Military were unable to be put to their proper use that day, the defense of our country. I would like an explanation of that.

With all the billions put into the Department of Homeland Security, I'll bet anyone could carry a bomb onto any city bus in the US.

It all has to do with their focus.
Before 911 no one gave serious thought to using a passenger plane as a weapon.

If before 911 the TSA proposed new rules requiring all passengers to remove their belts and shoes people would have freaked out. Congress would have the TSA head on the hill, grilling him on the reason.

Too many people on here are using 'today' glasses reguarding the events of 14 years ago.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Jchristopher5

This thread is a Gish Gallop. Funny because I usually don't see this arguing tactic used outside of Creationist debates.

Yes, many posters on this board are quite skilled at this particular tactic. It's almost as if they have had the same training. Almost.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Great thread OP! S&F!
Like most offical investigations the Zelikow/Kean Commission was not there to hold anyone responsible as one of the commissioners had said "They weren't there to blame anyone." Their purpose was to minimize the government's liability as much as possible and to cover up everything else.Their executive director Philip Zelikow had already came up with a outline of the report and that's what they went with.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: soulwaxer
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You can fool some people sometimes.
But you can't fool all the people all the time.

soulwaxer


And you can't seem to provide a articulate rebuttal of my post.

every time....


LOL Somebody doesn't know the song that was referenced lol.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 02:37 AM
link   
OP: It sounds really solid and it seems perfectly reasonable to ask an OS'er to address a small handful of big points like that.

It's pointing out all the key points that OS'ers never answer. Belief in OS involves overlooking a few mysteries, and OP is asking how you overlook these major issues?

Re: More contradictions:

They PHYSICS are a huge aspect of that day's events, and practically every part of OS is physically impossible! Planes of light aluminum can't pierce into steel towers like that. Planes have never been known to vaporize completely like all 4 did on 9-11, most notably the nonexistent plane crash at the Pentagon, and the PA hole in the dirt called a crash. Planes don't disappear like that when they crash!

Both towers exploded downward and vaporized somehow, turning steel and concrete to dust clouds. And people say the steel towers just fell inward, from fire, that couldn't melt steel like that. And falling is entirely different from being vaporized as it happened!

Bldg 7 came down in an obvious free-fall demolition but this is also called a physically-impossible steel collapse from fire.

The Pentagon's refusal to release a single photo from their surveillance cameras that show an airplane crashing into it, rather than a small missile or something. Why not release a frame or two of the plane and clear up all the mystery of it? No one would disbelieve it happened if we could watch surveillance video of the "crash."

Their refusal to do so obviously is suspicious. Why don't they want us to see what happened?

And what was up with those lines of people who walked the Pentagon after the giant plane crash, picking up small chunks of metal in their bare hands. Why were they so keen on removing all traces? This doesn't normally happen after a crash, so why would it happen here? Not to mention: How come this plane was mostly vaporized like the others? Why wasn't there normal airplane wreckage at any of the 4 crash sites?

Well those are some of the physical impossibilites of the day. Surely no one will legitimately answer these points either lol.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Planes of light aluminum can't pierce into steel towers like that.


What makes you claim that?


Planes have never been known to vaporize completely like all 4 did on 9-11,


Yet another truther lie, why do you claim all 4 planers vaporised?


And people say the steel towers just fell inward, from fire, that couldn't melt steel like that.


Wrong, only truthers claim steel was melted.


The Pentagon's refusal to release a single photo from their surveillance cameras that show an airplane crashing into it, rather than a small missile or something.


They have released it, truthers just refuse to accept reality.


How come this plane was mostly vaporized like the others? Why wasn't there normal airplane wreckage at any of the 4 crash sites?


There was, but again you refuse to accept it.


Well those are some of the physical impossibilites of the day.


As shown, they were not physical impossibilities, just trut6hers poor understanding of physics and how things really work.


Surely no one will legitimately answer these points either


Of course you will totally ignore the answers, as they do not fit your silly conspiracy theory!







edit on 17-3-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Every official story has lies or lies of omission, simply from the fact that classified info can't & won't be released to the public.

But 9/11 was so blatant b/c people could watch it for themselves. The controlled demolition of Building 7, the Pentagon "plane" debris that was carried away by about a dozen people, the lack of a crashed plane in Pennsylvania, the presence of thermite in the tower debris, only releasing 5 frames of video from the Pentagon attack, and the destruction of all surveillance video footage from businesses near the Pentagon. And that doesn't even include the explosions that kept ripping through the buildings, like in the basements & lobbies.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
the Pentagon "plane" debris that was carried away by about a dozen people,


Why lie? Why do you ignore the 757 engines?
Why do you ignore the 757 wheels?
Why do you ignore the 757 undercarriage?
Why do you ignore the bodies and body parts from Flight 77?


the presence of thermite in the tower debris,


There was no thermite found in the tower debris....


and the destruction of all surveillance video footage from businesses near the Pentagon.


Why lie and claim the surveillance video footage was destroyed? www.911myths.com... explains it.
and
vault.fbi.gov...



And that doesn't even include the explosions that kept ripping through the buildings, like in the basements & lobbies.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Who's lying? I'm talking about the surveillance footage from the surrounding buildings, which were in fact confiscated. And the video you linked only shows the smoke AFTER the impact. I'm talking about how the Pentagon (not FBI in your vid) only released 5 frames of the impact video. You know, where the supposed plane hit the Pentagon?

Also, who mentioned anything about there being no bodies from Flight 77? You're arguing against something I wasn't arguing. And even the official story claims the planes got so hot they "vaporized". So how could they have carried away something they claim vaporized?

And show me anything that shows 747 (not a 757) wreckage in Pennsylvania. There were a few scraps of metal and some small craters in dirt. Do you even realize how big a 747 is? There's literally no way that hole in the Pentagon could've been made by a 747, especially when it supposedly vaporized on impact.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
even the official story claims the planes got so hot they "vaporized".


Please show exactly where in the official report that is stated....


And show me anything that shows 747 (not a 757) wreckage in Pennsylvania. There were a few scraps of metal and some small craters in dirt. Do you even realize how big a 747 is? There's literally no way that hole in the Pentagon could've been made by a 747, especially when it supposedly vaporized on impact.


Oh dear, now you have just shown you really know nothing at all about 9/11.... just why and where do you think a 747 was involved in 9/11? What stupid truther site are you getting your "information" from?



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Planes of light aluminum can't pierce into steel towers like that.


What makes you claim that?


Planes have never been known to vaporize completely like all 4 did on 9-11,


Yet another truther lie, why do you claim all 4 planers vaporised?


And people say the steel towers just fell inward, from fire, that couldn't melt steel like that.


Wrong, only truthers claim steel was melted.


The Pentagon's refusal to release a single photo from their surveillance cameras that show an airplane crashing into it, rather than a small missile or something.


They have released it, truthers just refuse to accept reality.


How come this plane was mostly vaporized like the others? Why wasn't there normal airplane wreckage at any of the 4 crash sites?


There was, but again you refuse to accept it.


Well those are some of the physical impossibilites of the day.


As shown, they were not physical impossibilities, just trut6hers poor understanding of physics and how things really work.


Surely no one will legitimately answer these points either


Of course you will totally ignore the answers, as they do not fit your silly conspiracy theory!








I don't believe the post is honest but OK I'll answer your disingenuous questions.

The answer is PHYSICS. It's NOT physically possible for soft aluminum planes to pierce harder steel and concrete. This is a physical fact. I'm not about to go searching for sites to argue as "evidence" of the standard laws of physics. There are endless sites and videos explaining all these things crystal clear.

And I stand by all the physical impossibilities I stated.

Planes don't vaporize and vanish when they crash, as they do in the official story. Duh. Look up pics of any plane crash from any day other than 9-11. Plane crashes leave piles of metal and debris, not empty holes in the ground...

Steel: The whole OS was premised on the buildings collapsing from steel weakened by fire. That is the OS. I think you're nit-picking the word I used "melt" so fine: The OS says steel WEAKENED by fire and caused the collapse. Regardless nit-picking single words: Steel can't be WEAKENED by fire like that.

Pentagon video that was released obviously does not show a giant plane lol. They've shown a few frames that don't involve a plane though. It suggests that there was..........not a plane there.

There, I answered all your disingenuous questions.


(post by Jchristopher5 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: glast82
I hope you all are aware that Active Thermitic Material was Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe.

The hijackers did not put it there.

This can be found at The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31




Also this is very telling..

www.youtube.com...


Thanks for the info. I'd seen studies on this years ago but some people still deny it like their lives depend on it



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
The part I like is that the day after 911 and all of america was grounded and the hunt was on for that ladin bin of crap good old bin ladin. The only planes allowed to fly were the ones flying the bin ladin family safely back to Saudi Arabia



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: illuminnaughty
The only planes allowed to fly were the ones flying the bin ladin family safely back to Saudi Arabia


Yet another truther lie, not based on anything factual!

www.911myths.com...


However, it was later revealed that the "bin Laden flight" left the US more than a week after the attacks, on September 20th

also....

And ultimately the 9/11 Commission would offer the following commentary on the issue: Flights of Saudi Nationals Leaving the United States Three questions have arisen with respect to the departure of Saudi nationals from the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11: (1) Did any flights of Saudi nationals take place before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001? (2) Was there any political intervention to facilitate the departure of Saudi nationals? (3) Did the FBI screen Saudi nationals thoroughly before their departure? First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001.24 To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened. Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at theWhite House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. The issue came up in one of the many video teleconferences of the interagency group Clarke chaired, and Clarke said he approved of how the FBI was dealing with the matter when it came up for interagency discussion at his level. Clarke told us,“I asked the FBI, Dale Watson . . . to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me.” Clarke added,“I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House.” Although White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card remembered someone telling him about the Saudi request shortly after 9/11, he said he had not talked to the Saudis and did not ask anyone to do anything about it. The President andVice President told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media. None of the officials we interviewed recalled any intervention or direction on this matter from any political appointee. Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights. The Saudi government was advised of and agreed to the FBI’s requirements that passengers be identified and checked against various databases before the flights departed. The Federal Aviation Administration representative working in the FBI operations center made sure that the FBI was aware of the flights of Saudi nationals and was able to screen the passengers before they were allowed to depart. The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures.They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights. Chapter 10, 9/11 Commission Report


So why did you post such crap as if it was true?



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce
I was`nt awre of that report I am just going on about what was said at that time. But I would like to know why they were not sent to gitmo? They were involved being Saudi`s and the family of Tim Osman oops I meant osama bin ladin he was only called bin ladin after 911 up till the attack he was an asset of the CIA. Still on the pay roll until he went rogue.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete


Steel can't be WEAKENED by fire like that


I believe you need to study up on your metallurgy. Start from the begining and work your way up to the atomic space lattice structure and how heat excites the atoms in steel.

If what you say is true, tgen why do we waste our time fireproofing the steel strucutres in buildings?

The building I am a part of constructing at the moment is 5 stories tall, and you guessed it, every single beam has been coated with fireproofing.

Every single point you make is moot because it is obvious that you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about.
edit on 17-3-2015 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: peacefulpete


Steel can't be WEAKENED by fire like that


I believe you need to study up on your metallurgy. Start from the begining and work your way up to the atomic space lattice structure and how heat excites the atoms in steel.

If what you say is true, tgen why do we waste our time fireproofing the steel strucutres in buildings?

The building I am a part of constructing at the moment is 5 stories tall, and you guessed it, every single beam has been coated with fireproofing.

Every single point you make is moot because it is obvious that you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about.


Wrong, all my points are valid because I do know what I'm talking about. The whole world knows that steel buildings don't weaken from fire from an office or from theoretical jet fuel. Neither burns hot enough to weaken steel. There are temperatures hot enough to do that, but, not office fires or jet fuel. This is all common knowledge today.

Actually I should thank you for making me explain this because it's one of the biggest reasons that the whole world knows 9-11 didn't happen as explained in the official story, because that story just isn't physically possible. The fire didn't make those towers fall, or WTC 7. Which leaves the giant question: If fire wasn't physically capable of doing that, then what did?????????




top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join