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.

 

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

page: 43
160
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Well, you keep claiming there were airplanes involved, when any good YouTube scientist knows that it was a fleet of Government Stealth Twinkies packed with explosives and unicorn tears. So what's your point?

^^I wonder if anyone realizes that, to an outside observer, everyone in this thread is reacting to the other side of the issue like they just said something this ridiculous. Of course, that was a grossly stupid statement which has 0 possibility of even being a real thing, much less true. But everyone here is fairly intelligent from what I can gather. If we combined the various efforts, we would know who shot JFK before breakfast tomorrow. Most of you have done very thorough research along the lines of your particular beliefs, and that is commendable. And please refrain from insisting that they are truths and not just beliefs. I already know that you feel that way. But what happened to the ability to respect your rival, whether you can agree or not?
A space-based particle weapon did not bring down the buildings.
The planes and subsequent crash events were not holograms.
The Government Stealth Twinkie fleet was on maneuvers over Luxembourg that day.
At least we can all agree on these points, and the debate is within the realm of actual scientific possibilities.




posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

I find that too often there are those who dismiss undeniable facts and evidence as they continue to press on with their brand of so-called evidence that has been debunked with facts and evidence on a wide scale.

I asked them for evidence of explosives and they reply with doctored photos and hoaxed videos, in addition to the sound of explosions, which were later attributed to things that had nothing to do with explosives and references from people who have been caught lying.

It is all very simple, they do not have the credibility to be taken seriously.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

That deserves 2 stars, at least!




posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

It sounds as though you are describing yourself.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Bad day for science in 9/11 topics. Heck, it was a bad decade! For evidence-based science at least...
I don't know if we are talking about opinions here, really. But that reply absolutely deserves some stars! First, btw.



And thanks for your other reply with regards to the steel beam, I think you are spot on!




posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




It is all very simple, they do not have the credibility to be taken seriously


Star for you! At least something we both might be able to agree upon.

But where did I post a hoax now, what's the matter with you? Don't like to back up strange allegations very much, do you? "Having another opinion but respecting others" is not something you learn in the military nowadays, innit?


edit on 26-8-2015 by PublicOpinion because: linkylink



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I think it is clear that there are some members here who have far more time to violently disagree with anything that does not conform with the OS... So much time in fact that it could be considered a full time job...

Draw your own conclusions....



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

It could either be considered a full-time job, or strong evidence against them having one.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Let's start here. Did you post the following videos as references without checking the rest of the story?

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

It is all about facts and evidence that support the OS.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Then how about accepting my challenge. Prove that I am wrong when I say that neither thermite nor explosives were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Next, prove to us that I am wrong when I say that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, and the internal collapse of WTC 5.

Then, explain why after 14 years, not one shred of evidence for explosives and thermite has ever surfaced.

Add to the fact that after 14 years, no one found evidence of explosives and thermite and furthermore, another hint is that demolition experts, firefighters, structural and civil engineers and architects have concluded that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, which are hints that you are incorrect.

Truther claims of

* Explosives

* Thermite

* Nano-thermite

* Pools of molten steel for days at ground zero

* Missiles striking WTC 1, WTC 2, and the Pentagon

* Space beams

* Nukes

* United 93 landed in Cleveland

* Passengers from United 93 were seen boarding a bus in Cleveland

* Tampering with an aircraft transponder will render an aircraft invisible to radar

* Cell phone calls were made at 30,000 feet

* United 93 was shot down near Shanksville by an F-16

* United 93 was shot down by a white jet

* United 93 did not crash near Shanksville

* United 175 was carrying a pod loaded with explosives

* United 175 was seen shooting a missile

* United 175 was a military jet

* A missile struck the Pentagon

* American 77 flew north of the gas station

* The 9/11 aircraft were swtiched and flown under remote control

were all FABRICATED some with the goal to discredit Truth Movement and it is unfortunate that there were those who took that bait and posted those fabricated claims on 9/11 CT websites and all over the Internet.
edit on 26-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



Bad day for science in 9/11 topics. Heck, it was a bad decade! For evidence-based science at least...


Evidence based? Well, demolition and structural experts with no government ties concur that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible. Even architects and firefighters concur as well.

In addition, a scientific-based study has put to rest, the false claims that thermite and nano-thermite were found.

Let me add more truther claims that were fabricated and have since crashed in flames.

* 9/11 hijackers are still alive

* Passengers and crew of the 9/11 airliners were flown to a secret base

* ACARS depicted the 9/11 aircraft airborne after their crash times

* 9/11 was a false flag operation

* Osama bin Laden was not responsible for the 9/11 attack

* Osama bin Laden died in 2001

* American 77 overflew the Pentagon and landed at Ronald Reagan Airport

* No aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon

* 9/11 hijackers were not skilled enough to fly aircraft


edit on 26-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity



I think it is clear that there are some members here who have far more time to violently disagree with anything that does not conform with the OS...


Well, when I see those dismissing scientific evidence and conclusions of demolition experts, structural and civil engineers, firefighters and architects with no ties to the federal government and substitute hoaxed and bogus videos and photos and spew disinformation that was planted in order to discredit the Truth Movement, what more is there to say?
edit on 26-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




Let's start here. Did you post the following videos as references without checking the rest of the story?


No, let me tell you something. The next time you come up with such a lazy accusation better make sure it's sound. How am I supposed to take you serious now?
Well. I already had some problems doing so as I realized that you keep unloading your spam into every 9/11 thread on this board regardless, but now you've just presented yourself as a hoaxbender to me. It's all about facts and evidence, eh?

This discussion is getting way more funny than suspected!





posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



No, let me tell you something.


How about telling us where's your evidence for thermite, nukes and demo explosives.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

I don't believe PublicOpinion mentioned nukes. I think you may be carrying arguments over from the other thread, my friend.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

You cannot prove you are right. After 14 years of study and investigation, it is painfully clear that the official story is grossly deficient in truth and accuracy. That you cannot understand that is a problem you will have to deal with on your own.

The official story cannot be proven, whether Cheney is telling it or you are telling it.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander



You cannot prove you are right. After 14 years of study and investigation, it is painfully clear that the official story is grossly deficient in truth and accuracy.


Since it has been 14 years and still no evidence of explosives and thermite, have you ever wondered why demolition experts, structural and civil engineers, architects and even firefighters mainly support that fire and impact damage were responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 7 and for the internal collapse of WTC 5?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Korg Trinity



I think it is clear that there are some members here who have far more time to violently disagree with anything that does not conform with the OS...


Well, when I see those dismissing scientific evidence and conclusions of demolition experts, structural and civil engineers, firefighters and architects
etc....

Funny that because that is exactly what you're doing when you dismiss without consideration the clear evidence that refutes the OS.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity




Funny that because that is exactly what you're doing when you dismiss without consideration the clear evidence that refutes the OS.

But there is no evidence to support anything other than the OS.
YT vids are not evidence.
Even Richard Gage does not have evidence. Just speculation on his part.



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join