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.

 

What Year Did You Stop Your Cognitive Dissonance Towards The 9/11 OS ?

page: 10
37
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

I'm just a fortean - we are neither skeptics nor believers, just observers and note-takers.

About the manuals that weren't changed: you seem to have information I do not have. Do you have any sources to quote (apart from yourself)? My opinion is based on conversations with engineers and architects. There even is a movement - no doubt you would label it a 'truthers' movement - of architects and engineers whom dispute the official version of events and want a new investigation.




posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

Can humble forum members grant applause? If so: APPLAUSE!



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
There even is a movement - no doubt you would label it a 'truthers' movement - of architects and engineers whom dispute the official version of events and want a new investigation.


We have all seen the quality of their "research"....

This is their leader!


also www.csicop.org...
edit on 10-6-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

About on a level with firing a shotgun at a steel plate to prove the aircraft knocked all the fireproofing off....



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
There even is a movement - no doubt you would label it a 'truthers' movement - of architects and engineers whom dispute the official version of events and want a new investigation.


We have all seen the quality of their "research"....

This is their leader!


also www.csicop.org...



I just have to say this.

Anyone who reads my thread on 9/11 knows I am a pretty strong proponent of the Offical Story but I have to say this.

I agree that the video you have shown shows that Gages explanation of things can be foolish but I really do not think that video is representative of their research but rather just shows Gage trying to explain his point (pretty poorly). I am no fan of the man but I have heard him giving some pretty articulate and more impressive explanations for his ideas around 9/11.

Furthermore I also think that there are much better ways of showing the flaws in the research of A&E for 9/11 truth or lack there off, with out having to go for that video.

The only reason I bring this up is because I myself has also posted that video at times in the way you have but I realise that really its a bit of a cheep shot and does not really do anything to debunk anything he says just make him look foolish.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

What Gage seems to do there is simply try to explain the absurdity of what happened in laymans terms. I often have to resolve to such methods myself, just to get my point across. For example, I recently used the example of a watering can to explain Colebrook-White to a layman. He constantly messed up the difference between waterlevels and pipe slope. He thought that if the difference in water levels increments, the flow rate does too. No, it does not if the slope of the interconnecting pipe does not change. I explained this to him as follows: "If I pour out a watercan into a flowerpot, the water flows with a given rate. If I do not change the position of the can but take away the flower pot and put the Grand Canyon in its place, the water will not flow any faster. I did not change the slope, though I did change the difference in levels".

He could have observed - and I would not be able to deny it - "Oh, come on Fort, you can't move the Grand Canyon - so you're BS me!" ... the latter part of the sentence being BS itself, of course.

So, let's not confuse a model with reality, especially not if the model was meant to overcome your cognitive disabiliy.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I had a slightly different one on 9/11 which I was ashamed of, on the night it happened (I was in Greece) out to dinner with my wife and in the restaurant saw WTC on fire, said to the wife looks like America has had their first taste of comeuppance, perhaps now they will stop thinking they are world police.

It wasn't until the following day stood in a bar watching the whole event and realising the gravity did I start having trouble with thinking the Americans got a punch on the nose which they deserved and a smug grin although I knew I should be appalled.

I started to come around, I started to hate al quaked a and what they had done, I then pro Iraq war and WMDd hook line and sinker.

Post war, I've done some reading and am now moved to anti Iraq war and then very anti American foreign policy and U.S. government on how they raped Iraq and have left it the way it is today, absolutely disgusting and worse than the attacks on 9/11.

Now I am on the fence with 9/11, from it absolutely being AQ now started leaning towards it being somehow allowed, that those greedy bastard us leaders were involved, nothing surprises me after reading about the Iraq war and the disgusting American policy there.

Ps. I am not against Americans or the soldiers/military, nor am I anti America, it was the greed at the top that did this and we should demand something like the Nuremberg Trial, Bush, Blair, Powell, Rumsfeld and all those linked should stand trial for what they did to Iraq.
edit on 10 6 2015 by Forensick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

The problem with Gage and his model he is implying that because the mass below the impact zone is more than above it couldn't happen.

The real problem is with the floor slabs they had same design near the bottom and the top (apart from 3 service floors) The connections for the trusses on each floor slab are designed for the floors own mass plus the load imposed by people office equipment etc plus a safety margin.

The floor slabs were all independent of each other and suspended between the inner core wall and the outside wall.

Any load from above landing on a floor slab could only be resisted by the connections supporting that floor slab. That's what Gage does not take into account.

Also a falling mass generates a dynamic load which is FAR greater than the static load it would apply if placed on the floor slab.

We also have the fact that STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS who work out the loads in structures have guess who as the best customers yes ARCHITECTS.

Then the problem of the numbers of qualified people who think like Gage.

In the area I work there is a population of around 5 miilion and it has more STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS than AE 9/11 truth. I have yet to meet one yhat thinks it's a demo job.

Over the years having tested structral components sometimes to destruction he is tuned to the Moon!!!


edit on 10-6-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

1. I did not question the WEBSITE, I said they all went back to the same bullsh*t story told by a PAKISTANI Diplomat that no one supports. If ABC (CNN, FOX, REUTERS, SKY, BBC etc....) linked to the same Paki diplomat I would treat them the same.

2. The pipeline, stopped being a concern of the United States Government in 1998. What Karzai did afterwards is irrelevant.

3. I said that the Pentagon has a room full of war plans...up to and including extraterrestrial attack....it does not mean that anyone is actively moving to put those plans in play. And again, see the part about a UN conference that the Paki diplomat attended where he came up with his story. The same conference that did not have any members of the US Government in attendance. At worst, it was a drunken statement made by a retired individual with no active knowledge of what was going on in the US government.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: MsVen

No, THREE military helipads in the immediate area. Only ONE has helicopters assigned to it. For good, bad, or indifferent, the United States has always considered the Atlantic and the Pacific as "defense". Our Continental Air Defenses were postured against an attack coming in from the oceans. Prior to 1989-1990, what we saw on 9/11....probably would not have been as successful. BUT, after the Soviet Union imploded, one of the first things that our politicians did, was to end the Cold War air defenses we had in place....they had other places to spend the money.

Which is one reason why no one in the government really wanted to start playing the blame game too heavily. How do you hold someone responsible when they decide that taking Defense money and spending it on Welfare (Education...etc...) is a better use of the money at the time?

Or, how do you hold a General responsible when you do not give him the funding to have comprehensive air defense?



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: jaffo

I'm just a fortean - we are neither skeptics nor believers, just observers and note-takers.

About the manuals that weren't changed: you seem to have information I do not have. Do you have any sources to quote (apart from yourself)? My opinion is based on conversations with engineers and architects. There even is a movement - no doubt you would label it a 'truthers' movement - of architects and engineers whom dispute the official version of events and want a new investigation.


I'm not doing your research for you. If you are not aware that there have been some very serious changes in highrise architecture because of 9/11, you are willfully ignorant on the subject. That's not a shot at you, it's just honesty.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: enlightenedservant

1. I did not question the WEBSITE, I said they all went back to the same bullsh*t story told by a PAKISTANI Diplomat that no one supports. If ABC (CNN, FOX, REUTERS, SKY, BBC etc....) linked to the same Paki diplomat I would treat them the same.

2. The pipeline, stopped being a concern of the United States Government in 1998. What Karzai did afterwards is irrelevant.

3. I said that the Pentagon has a room full of war plans...up to and including extraterrestrial attack....it does not mean that anyone is actively moving to put those plans in play. And again, see the part about a UN conference that the Paki diplomat attended where he came up with his story. The same conference that did not have any members of the US Government in attendance. At worst, it was a drunken statement made by a retired individual with no active knowledge of what was going on in the US government.





And once again, you miss the point. Maybe you should go back & read my original posts to see what you originally responded to. Because you're missing the point again & again. I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. Nor am I now. I was was stating the 20-30 reasons I doubted the official story from the beginning.

The fact that there was an Afghan pipeline was one of my reasons. It's called looking for possible motives. So the fact that the pipeline was an issue from 1998 to 2002 shows that I was right to consider it a part of the equation. I never said it was built, not built, the main reason we went to war, or blah blah blah. So what are you even trying to prove here?

Also, your argument for #2 comes from the same source my counterargument came from. So if my conclusion isn't viable, then why is yours? Like I said earlier, I simply listed the things that made me question the OS. That's what you should be raising an issue with because everything else is missing the point. Or are you saying that in 2001 I shouldn't have considered the Afghan pipeline one of my 20-30 reasons I didn't believe the official story?

Same goes for the plans to attack Afghanistan. I don't care if we have contingency plans or not. That's not my argument. I was simply showing that there were 3 articles from 2001 showing that we were planning an Afghan attack pre-9/11, and 2 of those articles mention the Afghan pipeline. It's called providing links to back up 1 reason why I doubted the 9/11 official story. Because those links pointed to the same pipeline I'd referred to in my 20-30 reasons for doubting the OS.

Is that making sense to you now? All I was doing is showing that both pre-9/11 & immediately after 9/11, the Afghan pipeline was an issue. I knew that already because I was following global events before 9/11. You're the one who's trying to make this into something it isn't.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

That's a good one. For me it was only two years. The dad of my girlfriend at the time was into a lot of "conspiracy" topics. He gave me a bunch of burned DVD's (like "In Plane Sight") all about 9/11 except the on from Alex Jones. The early one where he sneaks into Bohemian Grove. Then from there I got really into Zeitgeist: The Movie. The first thing that captured my attention was the lack of Pentagon coverage and then WTC 7.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

To take down the massive World Trade Centers, you would need to shatter all of the support beams at the same time, from the top to the bottom of the buildings. Otherwise this happens:

Planes alone aren't going to shatter all of the support beams (as even controlled demolitions have to be executed properly or else they fail, like the video shows). That's why I said I would've been more inclined to believe the official story if it said terrorists used a combination of controlled demolitions & airplane collisions. That would have also explained Building 7.

More importantly though, why do you care what I believe? It's my opinion.


YOU believed softer objects could not damage harder objects so we have already seen your understanding of physics,materials and kinetic energy are WRONG so what else could be WRONG!!!

Well since my FIRST job leaving school was in the design/drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company also doing a course of civil engineering while working there and have spent 35+ years in the construction industry mostly on technical roles you are talking BS.

They don's need to shatter beams and like I said if you look at the shape of the entrance holes they match up with the column tree joint system.

If you look at the impact areas and when they fell the South tower was hit second but FELL FIRST, greater load above the impact area, it also fell towards the area of impact.

The Towers did not fall in their own foot print, they did not fall at free fall speed (if you watch the videos debris from above overtakes the collapse) the dust was not STEEL it was all the material I listed before , sheet rock , fire protection etc.

Your entitled to your opinion BUT when you come out with statements that are wrong , someone will correct what you think.



Huh? I never said I "believed softer objects could not damage harder objects". That's a straight up lie. Otherwise how could gasoline or nitroglycerine cause harm to harder objects? LOL I even listed tsunamis as a form of overwhelming power that could destroy a structure. (FYI, "hard water" isn't actually hard.)

Please, don't come at me with fake arguments & troll attempts. I'm a bit of a smart-a & have no problems pointing out the ridiculousness of your argument.

Also, when did I say they fell on their own footprints? Are you making assumptions again? You should probably re-read what I actually typed. I said I don't believe those planes alone could take down the towers. I still stand by that. And I don't believe planes colliding that high up the towers would cause continuous explosions throughout the buildings, much less cause the support beams to blow throughout the entire buildings. I still don't believe that & no amount of CAPS LOCK is going to change my opinion of that.

And what does the rest of the stuff you mentioned have to do with what I said? It seems like you simply copy-and-pasted some "anti-Loose Change/anti-Missing Links" argument to respond to me. I didn't say anything about the dust being made of blah, they fell on their footprints, or any of that. If you're going to call me out, at least get my words right.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant


I too don't believe the damage caused by the planes could have brought down the towers.
Something else HAD to have been used......
Especially the speed they came down.....it was like no resistance at all.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: lambros56
a reply to: enlightenedservant


I too don't believe the damage caused by the planes could have brought down the towers.
Something else HAD to have been used......
Especially the speed they came down.....it was like no resistance at all.


"Feelings" do not equal "Evidence." Just saying.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: lambros56

I agree. I could see a later administration declassifying info about 9/11 & it showing there was far more to the story. I could even believe a story such as this (maybe):

The US releases all 9/11 info & it reveals that there was a collection of operatives who executed it in unison with the hijackers. The rogue unit was composed of double agents, foreign agents, defense contractors, and black ops groups who wanted to ignite a series of wars to their benefit. These operatives infiltrated security agencies and various other businesses, and several factions rigged explosives in numerous buildings. The events of 9/11 only involved some of the rigged buildings; most of the others were used as a virtual hostage situation to get us to go along with their plan.

To prevent panic & to buy time to catch the shadow group, the US govt kept this part of the story silent. But as of 2003, we had found & nullified all of the hidden explosives & killed the remaining members of this unit. That's why we were finally able to change our priorities from Afghanistan to Iraq. Citizens, we're sorry to have kept you in the dark but blah blah blah.

Not saying that's the truth, but it would be far more believable to me than the crap they gave us.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant


Huh? I never said I "believed softer objects could not damage harder objects". That's a straight up lie.


Really lets have a look at what YOU said important words in bold.


originally posted by: enlightenedservant
How could airliners do that much damage without explosives also inside of the buildings? Especially when people were hearing & getting caught up in explosions, including the firefighters themselves. Firefighters were even having to leave the buildings because of additional explosions. And that doesn't even get to Building 7.

The exteriors of airliners are made from very thin materials in order to keep the planes lightweight. So them knocking down those towers didn't make sense, especially since I've seen failed controlled demolitions. So when people started saying it was strictly the 4 planes, it didn't make sense. If they would've said it was a combination of the planes & controlled demolitions, I would've believed the initial story.



They did have an explosive mixture on board FUEL , I never said that YOU made the other comments it's just a list of BS that get's repeated over and over.

As for people hearing explosions when very LARGE structural components fail guess what they make a LOT OF NOISE and because of the events of the day loud noise becomes an explosion can you imagine hundreds then thousands of tons of steel falling. I have seen people almost 5h1t themselves when a large structural fixing ,or glulam beams or concrete and other items are tested to failure and they don't know it's about to happen.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Same for me.

Exactly the identical points.

Then during all the research and especially after. My mind was full of more questions than answers, because I jumped down that rabbit hole, and found a whole maze of rabbit holes.

Still, to this day I search solo, despite my reduced time here on ATS, I never stopped researching it.

I suspect, todays conflicts were precipitated with anticipation, by those behind orchestrating the 9/11/01 attacks.

Some how, I just know jihadists did not succeed as they have, with out major strings getting pulled.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MsVen

After the fall of Soviet Union aka EVIL EMPIRE were massive cutbacks in defense outlays

Opinion was that the BEAST (Soviet Union) was dead - who was around to attack us ......

ON 9/11/2001 were 14 air defense fighters positioned at 7 bases around the US

Fighters were launched from Otis at tip of Cape Cod and Langley near Virginia Beach

Once attacks manifested themselves many other airbases *Andrews - Wash DC) , Hancock (Syracuse NY)
started preparing and launching fighters, but takes time to fuel and arm (as well as rounding up pilots)

Again aside from the 14 fighters were not a bunch of planes armed and ready on strip alert



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join