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: 18
37
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: MrBig2430




You're ignorant about the building in Tehran.


You mean this one....??

www.youtube.com...

And look .... Was not hit by jet plane......




posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith




The twin towers burned for 1 to 2 hours and fully collapsed into the basement.


really,

I remember seeing at least up to about 3 floors worth of debris when the twin towers collapsed and the dust settled.





Steel frames don't collapse from fire or anything else. Except controlled demolition.


yeah and the Easter bunny just stole Santa's wife.

So nothing will collapse a steel frame other controlled demolition?

You sure about that?

There is whole world out there where there is no need for any interference of man to destroy that which man created.

Nature is one thing that no building will ever be built to withstand the forces nature can output.




This time it's 3:30 AM and within 5 minutes several posters are trying to discredit the story without doing any real research.


So you posted it because you did the "real research"?




It's suspicious to me that I come back to this area of the forum. The same posters are here 24/7 covering up and arguing against any information coming out.


Yeah, that's the way, no foot to stand on so resort to the disinfo/shill defense.




Unless I see it for myself I believe nothing.


Were you in New York on 9/11?

Or Maybe DC?

If you were in one city and not the other then obviously you don't believe that either planes hit the towers or a plane hit the Pentagon.

If you were not in any of these cities and didn't witness the attack yourself I guess you don't believe the US was attacked on 9/11



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale

If being present in either city has anything to do with one's perception of the events of the day, and I suppose such a scenario could be constructed, I was not in either city. Like most other americans, I watched it on TV, until the point when the towers collapsed, and then I walked away. I guess a similar presumption would apply to those in the Pennsylvania countryside.

That said, by sheer happenstance, I have met and talked to 2 different people who were in the New York area. One was across the river in NJ and watched from his condo, the other was actually inside the South Tower.

Interestingly both those men used the term "inside job" freely. Neither man believed the official story.

Two cents.


edit on 19-7-2017 by Salander because: spelling errors



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

I like how you can just imply with no proof and there is credible doubt to your post to coin your phrase. while people can cite actual individuals that went through 9/11 at various locations on how they state the truth movement is wrong.
edit on 19-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Added clarity



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale




really, I remember seeing at least up to about 3 floors worth of debris when the twin towers collapsed and the dust settled.


1 World Trade Center, at 1,368 feet (417 m); and 2 World Trade Center, at 1,362 feet (415.1 m)—were the tallest buildings in the world. You actually think it's proof of no controlled demolition because a few floors of debris was left? Another obvious genius. Any controlled demolition will still leave a pile of debris. Especially if they are trying to disguise the cause of collapse.




posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: InhaleExhale




really, I remember seeing at least up to about 3 floors worth of debris when the twin towers collapsed and the dust settled.


1 World Trade Center, at 1,368 feet (417 m); and 2 World Trade Center, at 1,362 feet (415.1 m)—were the tallest buildings in the world. You actually think it's proof of no controlled demolition because a few floors of debris was left? Another obvious genius. Any controlled demolition will still leave a pile of debris. Especially if they are trying to disguise the cause of collapse.



Good of you to agree that they didn't "fully collapse into the basement"



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Many different people handled the steel of the WTC. Firefighters and police that lost fellow firefighters and police. Emergency service persons worked the WTC that knew people killed at the WTC. Local engineers, demolitions experts, and police with demolitions training worked the WTC that knew people killed at the WTC. Clean up crews and demolition crews worked the WTC that had ties to individuals that were killed at the WTC. The steel was identified and sent to lay down yards worked by local law enforcement that also hand shifted through ruble for human remains, personal items, and evidence. 19,000 pieces of human remains recovered. Over 6,000 of the human remains recovered could fit in a test tube. Hundreds of watches recovered. Scores of ID cars and documents recovered.

There was no indication of columns cut by thermite of any type. The failed connections were due to overloading. Metallurgical analysis showed no steel worked on by demolitions of any type. The hand searching of ruble revealed no evidence of steel worked on by demolitions, no ignition wires, no ignition devices, no blasting caps, nor remote detonation devices.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith




1 World Trade Center, at 1,368 feet (417 m); and 2 World Trade Center, at 1,362 feet (415.1 m)—were the tallest buildings in the world.



At one point in time I believe they were, not when the fell though.

And this has what to do with what exactly?




You actually think it's proof of no controlled demolition because a few floors of debris was left?


Huh? How you get that from what I replied to is beyond me.

You said the towers collapsed into their basements.

I replied by saying that I remember there quite a bit of debris, a few floors high.




Another obvious genius. Any controlled demolition will still leave a pile of debris.


So you agree that the building didn't fall into their basements and there was massive pile of debris.

Not sure why you initially said it feel into the basement.




Especially if they are trying to disguise the cause of collapse.


You should have left that part out.

So if a demo squad wasn't trying to disguise a demo as a collapse they could demo the building with no debris left?



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Tallest buildings for 2 years The Willis (Sears) Tower took that spot 1974.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

SO WHAT we have idiots claiming the World is flat do you believe that as well.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

It didn't fall straight down not when you see the debris photos. You see the collapse from one side, the elevation you see ends up on top of the rubbble which means collapse fell towards the elevation STRUCK by the North Tower collapse well what do you know



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I've maintained the same position today, as on the day of 9/11--staged for maximum "shock", catalyst to go "to war", and reinvest into the MIC.

My veteran buddies all maintain this position as well, while we endured bitter encounters with non-vets, civilians, and the like.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: SecretSector

Well if you were going to implode tall buildings like the WTC towers in a place like NYC you probably wouldn't want to advertise the event ahead of time. A cover story involving terrorists might also dilute responsibility. The letter agencies could gain some intel from the response to the media event. Your IP and response have been duly noted perhaps its time you thought about purchasing one of those biometric guins safes?



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: SecretSector

I bet you no absolutely NOTHING about construction.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: SecretSector
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I've maintained the same position today, as on the day of 9/11--staged for maximum "shock", catalyst to go "to war", and reinvest into the MIC.

My veteran buddies all maintain this position as well, while we endured bitter encounters with non-vets, civilians, and the like.


I was in the military during 9/11. Lots of various tall tales. Most were about various Arab looking f'ers scooping out military bases and posts before and on 9/11. (They were just thought as arabs then. Muslim was more after 9/11.) No theories on the pentagon taken out by a UAV because it's an idiotic fantasy with no supporting evidence. Would you like to cite the evidence that screams UAV.

I also find it strange that you didn't say my fellow vet buddies. Especially in that you imply prior military service. Using "my vet buddies" instead of "my fellow vets" is an example of a slip the conspiracists would say screams conspiracy?

You from this linked thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Unlike you, many of us silently nodded our heads while maintaining "BS" attitude. In my branch of service, Pentagon strike screams UAV. "

Are you implying you and your vet buddies are knowledgeable about conspiracy, but choose to withhold evidence.......


edit on 21-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed and changed wording to be more specific

edit on 21-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: SecretSector

By the way, most veterinarians don't push their service into other's people faces. They use knowledge to prove what they know. Not hold up the banner of false authority.

If you could actually cite evidence and an argument, that helps your cause all the more. Just using innuendo makes your stance look weak. To assume that people are civilians because there is no evidence a UAV was used to create the pentagon 9-11 damage is idiotic.
edit on 21-7-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording to be more specific



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Ironic, for sure.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
And we can't forget the nano themite found in all the dust samples by Professor Steven Jones. No notable scientist has refuted this evidence with a peer reviewed paper. Plenty of idiots claim paint mixed itself up with other materials during the collapse. No serious contenders dispute the scientific facts.







posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Witch paper are you referring to? The paper peer reviewed by persons consulted by Jones to write the papers. Thus voiding independent peer review.

The paper where the individual that should have refereed the paper was bypassed. The bypassed person quit the journal over the fraudulent publishing.

The paper published by a hack journal not recognized for its scientific credibility.

The paper that was caught in pay for play.

The paper based on jones' samples that had no chain of custody, samples that had no documentation on how they were stored, and samples Jones received in the mail years after 9/11.

Jones' experiments that could not be reproduced by people that were sympathetic towards Jones.

Jones' samples that contained material explained by building materials. Finding the aluminum and iron compounds from building dust would be like trying to find table salt dumped into the sea.

Jones never conducted the experiments in an inert atmosphere to prove the compounds in his samples could produce the self sustaining reactions of thermite.

These the guys that claimed the thermite was in the ceiling tiles or sprayed on.

Can you please cite the paper you are referring to?



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

And it's considered good form to retract your own paper when it is shown it was peer reviewed under false pretenses and/or shown the experiments results are not reproducible.

A "truth" movement that pushes false authority and hids the whole narrative to create fraudulent theories. The irony, and why the majority of people have no time for the truth movement. It has nothing to do with the official narrative, but the pseudoscience of the truth movement.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join