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.

 

Truther Thread

page: 9
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: tsctsc

I think that truthers are not really seeking for the "how", truthers are really looking for the "why" and "who".
The how is unnimportant. If it were really airplanes or nanothermites it makes no difference for the result is exactly the same: thousands of people dead, buildings destroyed, sense of security gone, trust vanished.

It's when it comes to the "who" that it really gets scary: was it the US gov? Was it the terrorists, who found a breach in our system? Was it the jews? Now analyse carefully: why would you want to know who did it?
Because you want to know whether you've been sleeping with the enemy or you are depositing your trust in the wrong people. Maybe you'll seek revenge. Maybe you think you can get rid of them.

Nevertheless, the answer of "who" will hurt badly. It will likely destroy all your previous believes and everything/everybody you relied on.
Now, let's assume for a second you found out "who", regardless you are not the same person any longer, the next thing you want to know is "why".

"Why" is also, technically, unnimportant, however, you want to learn, for your personal satisfaction, why you had to change your self, your habits, your behaviour, why did people died, who can you trust, could you have prevented it, can you keep from happening again.


I will agree the 'how' is not so important. The fact is, if 9/11 was a financial crime perpetrated by people in the highest levels of government -- and I believe it was -- then they had the means and opportunity no matter the specifics of the 'how.'

It is the 'who' and 'why' that speaks to motive -- they are both very important and usually the very first things considered in a criminal investigation. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming regarding the 'who' and 'why.'

Brokers were targeted. Banking regulations were lifted. The vaults were destroyed. Intelligence offices were destroyed along with evidence. The plane 'intended' for the White House failed in its mission. There are many circumstances regarding lapses of security that day and leading up to it which suggest government involvement.

Those circumstances tell a story...unless you are an OSer, in which case those circumstances are just 'random' and unfortunate.

I don't believe for a second they are random and can't imagine any scenario, at this point, that could convince me otherwise. It's been nearly 15 years, I don't need to bicker about the 'how' with OSers. The circumstantial evidence has satisfied, for me, the important questions.



No OSer here, rest assured. I'm pretty sure the government is involved. However the motive for me, as opposed to your point of view, is way beyond financial reasons (of course the bottom line will always land on money somehow).

Nevertheless, the hit at the Pentagon do not corroborate "financial" as a motive (IMO) unless you go with the "FED's missing money" story and see that as a link, which I personally don't.
Actually, the side of the Pentagon that was hit was under construction and very few people were working there, thus not so many casualties (compaired to if area were fully operational) besides the "passengers" themselves.

I don't think that there was ever a plan to crash the plane at the White House either. That sounds just like a sad story trying to make the gvmt to be seen as much as victim as everyone else (hardly the case).

Like every truther, I have my own version for 9/11. Just too long to post it, would require a long time to find all the links that would justifiy it, so I rather not write it down. - feeling too lazy to do it


All in all, like I said, the "why" is lame no matter how deep you dig. And as for the who, they are the same ones who "allow"" school shootings, want to control guns, are closing down natural areas in the USA, are forbbiding you to carry water bottles or an umbrella to events or airplanes, are implementing patriot (and similar acts), and wants you to take as many drugs as you can.

They are the ones who want to bring people down to their knees... again, why the want us so... I dunno. However one thing I know: the longer we stay trying to find out about the past, the longer they have to plot the next blow.
We are burning a .50 cent candle to look for a .25 cent coin.

Not one thing is unlinked. Of course, my point of view.





posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   



"**Attention**

Discuss the topic, not each other."

If you notice I did not direct this at any one person.
It was a general statement about differences in thinking between differing age groups.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsctsc
Nevertheless, the hit at the Pentagon do not corroborate "financial" as a motive (IMO) unless you go with the "FED's missing money" story and see that as a link, which I personally don't.
Actually, the side of the Pentagon that was hit was under construction and very few people were working there, thus not so many casualties (compaired to if area were fully operational) besides the "passengers" themselves.


Actually, I find this theory very compelling:

SNIP


The September 11th attacks were likely meant as a cover-up for financial crimes being investigated by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), whose offices in the Pentagon were destroyed on September 11th. [1] The attacks ... were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which 'unknown' western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas.


If you are interested in reading the entire paper, you can find it here:
Collateral Damage

Cheers back at you!



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: johnquindell




Instead of executing Nazi war criminals we should have devoted all the human resources available to us to rehabilitating them, awakening in them awareness of the nature of their actions so that they could have come to understand that they must make amends. If they had remained alive they would have been a living testament to the transformative powers of forgiveness.

I doubt you will find many survivors of ISIS that will support your views.

IMO it opens the doors to abuse humanity if the only consequence is a stern talking to.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn



(For example, a truck may have delivered explosive devices to the WTC, but that trip was not recorded, or any pictures of it destroyed.


People get the wrong idea that you can detonate explosives inside a steel frame building and expect the building to collapse, but that is for Hollywood movies. Case in point is the 1993 WTC 1 bombing where a van delivered a bomb, which was detonated. However, WTC 1 remained standing and the blast waves were simply flowing around the steel beams, which is why the steel beams remained standing within the huge bomb crater.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: whatsup86



First of all it is obvious you lack the overall imagination you need for thinking like criminals that can execute such an operation. This is such a smart operation, it fooled the world on live television. Compared to the attack itself making a remote detonation system must have been a walk in the park if they even had too.


That wouldn't have worked on the WTC buildings because it would have taken almost a year to properly prepare each building for demolition and you cannot do it by simply detonating explosives inside a steel frame building and expect the building to collapse because there is a checklist that must be closely followed and adhered to.

Not knowing how steel frame buildings are properly prepared for explosive implosion is how unfounded WTC conspiracy theorist are hatched.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Yes I am saying explosives of some kind were used to bring down the WTC and the evidence points to that.


Since demolition explosions make a lot of noise that can be heard for miles, present videos where explosions are heard as the WTC buildings collapse.



No, they were blown to pieces,...


In that case, we would have heard the explosions in the WTC videos as the buildings collapsed, so show us where explosions were heard.


... while vaporizing all the concrete,...


How do you vaporize concrete? With thousands of tons of steel slamming into one another during the collapse of the WTC buildings, what chance would the softer concrete have against steel during such an event?


... and hurling thousands of tons of steel beams over 600 feet in every direction,


Explosives do not hurl tons of steel beams 600 feet during demolition implosions as evident in this video and notice the loud noise associated with explosive implosions, which is not what you hear as the WTC buildings collapse.




posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: johnquindell



In "The Art of War", Sun Tzu said never to surround an enemy. If you do not leave him an out, he will fight to the last man.


You suggest some lies should remain untouched to save the most cowardly spin-doctors?



Historians and psychologists especially should come out in favor of preserving invaluable study material in the form of the opportunity to converse with the authors of unfortunate historical deeds.

We must find a solution to the existing state of affairs that would be acceptable to both the accusers and the accused. It should solve the problem it sets out to solve without creating additional problems. It should present itself as an ethical means to an ethical end.


So we should better ask the murderers if they would like to go to jail?
Bollocks, but it's a funny take on justice you've got there. I'll give you that.

 


Come on wildb, whazzup?


“Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's mind without another's guidance. Sapere Aude! Dare to Know! Have the courage to use your own understanding is therefore the motto of the Enlightenment.”

I. Kant

I applause everyone for keeping up with Kants ideals and I don't care which names they call themselves. 9/11 threads tend to always repeat the same old same old, this one actually didn't help a bit.

Yeah, Sapere Aude! No guidance needed, thank you.


[the feeling of shame on someone else's behalf; the feeling of shame for someone else who has done sth. embarrassing]

Fremdschämen



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat



Well, if you think that's silly, guess how NIST proved the aircraft knocked all the fire-proofing off.....it involves a shotgun. But I'm sure you already knew that...


Let's take a look at photos on how fire protection was poorly applied to the steel structures of the WTC buildings.

Photo 1: Poorly Applied Fire Protection

Photo 2: Poorly Applied Fire Protection

Did you notice the exposed steel? In addition, the aircraft impacts had no problem dislodging fire protection even from steel columns where fire protection was replaced.

Let's take a look at this photo and notice what fire had done to this steel beam. Do you see any fire protection attached?

Horseshoe Steel Beam


edit on 30-12-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: tsctsc
Nevertheless, the hit at the Pentagon do not corroborate "financial" as a motive (IMO) unless you go with the "FED's missing money" story and see that as a link, which I personally don't.
Actually, the side of the Pentagon that was hit was under construction and very few people were working there, thus not so many casualties (compaired to if area were fully operational) besides the "passengers" themselves.


Actually, I find this theory very compelling:

SNIP


The September 11th attacks were likely meant as a cover-up for financial crimes being investigated by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), whose offices in the Pentagon were destroyed on September 11th. [1] The attacks ... were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which 'unknown' western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas.


If you are interested in reading the entire paper, you can find it here:
Collateral Damage

Cheers back at you!


I'll read the paper, so we have more to discuss about.
but just for the sake of the controversy of the whole case, the way I see it is:

if the gvmt chooses to lie about one thing, it may as well lie about every single thing. Therefore my question to you is What makes you believe that the gvmt would come out to the media and "be honest" (that would be the first) saying they don't have track of such unimaginable amount of money and that would be true?

That too can be just a mislead. Just another thing to feed conspiracy theories and make us stop in the march to the truth.

See? A lot of clashing information is thrown at us. Each one requires a huge amount of time to search, confirm, corroborate, and finally put together or be discarded. We keep wasting time on misinformation, while they keep ingeniously steering us to wherever they want us to go.

I dunno...

edit on 30-12-2015 by tsctsc because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2015 by tsctsc because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: tsctsc

I always explore these questions to satisfy myself. I never have the expectation that truth will be reported. It's sad, but I gave up on that hope years ago.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: whatsup86



First of all it is obvious you lack the overall imagination you need for thinking like criminals that can execute such an operation. This is such a smart operation, it fooled the world on live television. Compared to the attack itself making a remote detonation system must have been a walk in the park if they even had too.


That wouldn't have worked on the WTC buildings because it would have taken almost a year to properly prepare each building for demolition and you cannot do it by simply detonating explosives inside a steel frame building and expect the building to collapse because there is a checklist that must be closely followed and adhered to.

Not knowing how steel frame buildings are properly prepared for explosive implosion is how unfounded WTC conspiracy theorist are hatched.


Absolute rubbish.

The OS- theory does it without explosives.......... I never said how many floors must have been rigged or the amount of explosives used. So by saying it would take a year youre assuming a theory I havent mentioned (yet). Also show me a detailed plan because a year is just a baseless guess?

And even then who says they didnt have a year? You obviously have a detailed theory yourself including controlled demo you havent told us about. You made me curious so please enlighten me.
edit on 303pm3117000000p86 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Can't find your picturesque evidence and horseshoe-bending in the NIST-Mist either. Go figure!

Why don't we just remove parts of the fireproofing, light up some levels full of offices in the top and watch them fall into their footprints? We could eagely acquire a serious amount of cash, dude. Demolishing buildings with matchsticks only! Brilliant idea, but you already knew that. Right?

Carry on, please!



edit on 30-12-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


For me personally i can vividly recall the events of 9/11 as they unfolded live on TV, I can remember watching the towers crashing down, I can even remember the TV program i was watching cutting to the news and then watching nothing but the news for the next month.

Does this mean I know more about 9/11, of course not!

It does however mean that i can put that day into context much better than a 20 year old who is bashing away on a keyboard.


Oh, so now people should be a certain age to debate 911?

I have heard some crazy garbage against Truthers, but this one beats all of them.

What age should one be to participate in the 911 discussion?



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


For me personally i can vividly recall the events of 9/11 as they unfolded live on TV, I can remember watching the towers crashing down, I can even remember the TV program i was watching cutting to the news and then watching nothing but the news for the next month.

Does this mean I know more about 9/11, of course not!

It does however mean that i can put that day into context much better than a 20 year old who is bashing away on a keyboard.


Oh, so now people should be a certain age to debate 911?

I have heard some crazy garbage against Truthers, but this one beats all of them.

What age should one be to participate in the 911 discussion?


He is just looking to discredit me, let him try, I was at ground zero, I saw things with my own eyes and have studied the events of 911 every since.. most people who think they know what happened know very little. Including truthers..

The planes and the three buildings is about 2% of the story..



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: hellobruce

That video made Richard Gage a laughing stock in scientific community. Apparently, he never heard of Verinage demolition.


You can't use verinage demolition to support your argument. Using a demolition technique as an example to argue against the use of some kind of demolition work defies logic and is self-refuting. Pre weakening is carried out before hand and the structure is compromised along the middle not up near the top 15-20% of the building. If you look usually two floors are walked in opposite directions to bring the building down. And it's done in a perfect and unified manner with precision timing. Ironically, you will also tend to see one side bow inwards before the collapse begins. Just as we seen during the WTC collapse. Also you will notice a sharp deceleration of the mass above the fault line as it hits the mass below something that wasn't seen on 9/11 (not that you would because of the debris and dust). Those kind of collapses ocur because meticulous work is carried out in advance to ensure the collapse is symmetrical and neat. Random (I say random as there was no control over their spread) fires and destroyed beams from a jet liner would not bring about a neat verinage collapse.

I am not trying to argue a case for demolition here, I'm just pointing out that arguing against a demolition scenario on 9/11 by comparing it to a controlled demolition is kind of shooting yourself in the foot.


edit on 4941642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: InconspicuousObserver




I don't believe that's what he's doing at all. He just want's a thread where like minded people come together and share and discuss their ideas together. Like in politics, people join the party that enforces their beliefs. Same for religion. That's why people that embrace Judaism don't go to Christian churches etc. and why in civil circles they join clubs or fraternities that go along with their beliefs and interest etc. All Wildb is doing here is trying to have a thread where like minded people come together and talk about their common beliefs and ideas without being attacked and criticized for them.


Yes, thank you...



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: bjarneorn



Really? (chuckle)


Yes. Check it out.



Silverstein Can’t Get $3.5 Billion From Airlines for 9/11

Real estate developer Larry Silverstein can’t seek $3.5 billion from airlines whose planes were hijacked by terrorists and flown into the World Trade Center’s twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001, a judge ruled.

www.bloomberg.com...


Silverstein Loses Battle Over 9/11 Payouts


Mr. Silverstein—who signed a 99-year-lease to control the Twin Towers six weeks before they were destroyed—in 2004 sued American Airlines and United Airlines for more than $8 billion in damages, alleging they were responsible for reckless security breaches.

Should Judge Hellerstein's decision withstand the appeals process, it would bring an end to Mr. Silverstein's quest to receive additional money for the attacks. That litigious pursuit has been motivated in part by the fact that rebuilding the 10 million square feet lost in the attacks is proving to cost billions more than the $4.1 billion Mr. Silverstein received from his insurers.

The four towers planned at the 16-acre site carry a price tag of roughly $10 billion. Some of that cost—multiple billions of dollars—has been borne by various government agencies. Two towers—One World Trade Center and the 72-story 4 World Trade Center—are well under way and due to open by 2015. One World Trade is being developed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

But Mr. Silverstein has been unable to start work on the two remaining towers—the 1,349-foot-high 2 World Trade Center and 3 World Trade Center—and won't be able to do so without signing on tenants.

www.wsj.com...


In other words, Silverstein came out with the short end of the stick thanks to 9/11.



Oh my God, it actually wen't down SLOWER than the towers, that fell in 10 seconds!


Let's take a look at this video to see who is correct.





Really ... this must be one of the most pathetic crap, I've ever read ... what on earth do you think, those planes were supposed to intercept?

They were supposed to intercept ANYTHING, that was out of the ordinary, that could pose a threat to NY and the UN in particular.... 24/7 guard.


Let's take a look to see who is correct in this case.



Death Ends 1,600-Mile Flight Of Learjet Stolen by Mechanic

DENVER, May 25— A flight mechanic who did not have a pilot's license stole a private jet in Virginia early today and flew it 1,600 miles to Denver, where he shot himself to death as the authorities closed in, officials said.

They said they did not why the mechanic, Mike Christiansen, 24 years old, of Newport News, Va., stole the twin-engine Learjet 36-A. He was found dead at the controls moments after landing the plane that had been stolen from his employer, Flight International, at Patrick Henry International Airport in Newport News.

www.nytimes.com...


Now, would you care to explain why the Lear Jet was not shot down by interceptors?



Ya sure did, on 9/11 ... unless it was intentional inside job.


False. We don't shut down our air defenses for exercise or even during holidays. Let's take a look at the unit for which one of my chapters has ties and note the date of the interception of Russian bombers, but first, a photo of an F-22 from the 477th Fighter Group, whose first commander had invited me for a personal tour of his unit due to my chapter's ties with the 477th Fighter Group.

Here is a photo of one of the F-22's from the 477th Fighter Group intercepting a Russian bomber

Photo: F-22 Intercepts Russian Bomber



Intense Air-To-Air Intercepts Off The Coast of US, Russia & China

On Monday a quartet of Russian Tu-95 Bear bombers, all nuclear capable, made their way towards Alaskan airspace, at which time NORAD ordered the launch of a pair of 477th Fighter Group F-22A Raptors that sit alert out of Elmendorf AFB, located in Anchorage Alaska.

foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...




Case in Point? Case in POINT?


That's right, and you should have noticed the recovered passport from the fiery air disaster in Nepal.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: bjarneorn
No the calls from the flight attendants giving the seat assignments of the people involved gave the connection.
But facts mean nothing to those who just 'want to believe' in a conspiracy.
It has become a religion for them.


*cough* *cough* *cough*

"calls from the flight attendants, giving the seat assignments ..."

This actually makes sense to you, doesn't it?

This is like, when they find a piece of paper in the suspects pocket, a written list of his "comrates".

I mean, this just get's better and better ... what a huge load of bollocks.

"YES SIR, I saw it with my own eyes ... this big bad mean guy, stood up and started killing everybody and the first thing I thought to check was his seat number"

"And when he ran down the corridor, a piece of paper fell out of his pocket with a list of all his compatriots."

"And when I went to check his seat, I saw his passport ... his name was Mohammed Abdullah."

"That did it, that's the missing piece ... ABDULLAH ... he's a muslim ... that proves it."

"You're a HERO ... right out of a Marvel Comic".



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Informer1958



Yes I am saying explosives of some kind were used to bring down the WTC and the evidence points to that.


Since demolition explosions make a lot of noise that can be heard for miles, present videos where explosions are heard as the WTC buildings collapse.



No, they were blown to pieces,...


In that case, we would have heard the explosions in the WTC videos as the buildings collapsed, so show us where explosions were heard.


... while vaporizing all the concrete,...


How do you vaporize concrete? With thousands of tons of steel slamming into one another during the collapse of the WTC buildings, what chance would the softer concrete have against steel during such an event?


... and hurling thousands of tons of steel beams over 600 feet in every direction,


Explosives do not hurl tons of steel beams 600 feet during demolition implosions as evident in this video and notice the loud noise associated with explosive implosions, which is not what you hear as the WTC buildings collapse.





No the collapse was very silent.... just some relatively silent gas explosions right before they came down right? So silent and small they were measured by the the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory? As mentioned in this peer reviewed paper: www.journalof911studies.com... . Except according to that paper only strong explosives could have caused them. I wonder, not really, if those thousands of gas explosions you keep mentioning show up on those as well.

And dont come with your Blanchard bs please. He has been discredited on this very forum by Labtop. Or if you are going to: please give his seismic charts then? Instead of his words. Oh no you cant because they are lost!! How convenient. So its his words vs a peer reviewed paper. And his words vs actual seismograms recorded by the Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Hmmm wonder who is the liar here.... A guy who says their seismograms didnt show anything but cant prove it because how convenient! his company lost them! OR a geologist and seismology expert with a peer reviewed paper who uses legit seismograms that are publicly available.... Pick your guy.


edit on 304pm3124000000p86 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join