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.
originally posted by: choos
originally posted by: NWOwned
I've already established that the office contents and computer towers were neither all burned up nor all crushed.
Yet, they're largely MISSING. As are the trusses etc.,
an experiment for you to do.
drop a computer tower from the 10th floor of any building onto the street and note how much of it is left after this impact with the ground.
next drop about 10 tons of solid concrete and steel on top of it from the same height in one go, note how much of the computer tower is now left if you can find any in the mess.
What could have caused such extraordinary damage? Portions of cars burned while paper nearby did not.
originally posted by: samkent
I still ask myself this:
If you were planning this conspiracy why wait about an hour before you blow the buildings?
That gave the news media time to set up cameras and catch the explosions.
That gave rescue crews time to stumble across prewired explosives.
That gave time for people to escape.
Those escaped victims may have seen something by accident.
The smart plan would be to wait 4-5 seconds after the impact then hit the button.
Who's going to question the collapse ?
Who's going to be alive to tell what they saw?
Greater loss of life.
Right, because a plane colliding into a building and then suddenly the building falls down would not be suspicious at all. if there were any conspiracy at all it would have been more logical to wait a while so as to fool people into thinking it was the internal fires that resulted in the collapse of the building. That's assuming there was a conspiracy, which there wasn't.
originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: logicsoda
Right, because a plane colliding into a building and then suddenly the building falls down would not be suspicious at all. if there were any conspiracy at all it would have been more logical to wait a while so as to fool people into thinking it was the internal fires that resulted in the collapse of the building. That's assuming there was a conspiracy, which there wasn't.
You spend god knows how much time and effort rigging the building with your alleged demolition charges then you
fly a plane into the sections of building you have just rigged ......
The impact alone would have destroyed any demolition charges damaging wires and detonators by impact and resulting
fires .
"Controlled demolitions" depend on a precise sequences of charges detonating in a pattern to knock out critical support
columns which you just disrupted by flying plane through the area destroying the charges
Violates "OCCAMS RAZOR" in that introduces additional level of complexity into the operation - you have supposedly
been able to smuggle explosives in and rig the building for demolition . Now you want to hijack multiple airliners
to fly into the building . So what happens if the hijacking fails, like that of United 93, ? What do now ?
Set off charges with no airplane?
Nobody said truthers are known for their logical and consistent thinking.......
Nobody said truthers are known for their logical and consistent thinking.......
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: firerescue
I think that in terms of investigations, "who profited from this" comes before "occams razor".
So that being said, occams razor would conclude that there is no more simple reason than intrests tied the US and its allies were behind the planning and exicution of the 9/11 attacks.
By "truther", do you mean anyone that does not believe the OS is the truth?
originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: MALBOSIA
So your conspiracy fantasy outweighs pointing out just how illogical and inconsistent your plan is ...........
Occams Razor is method of comparing competing theories - it states that the simpler of theories is preferable
do to fact that a more complex theory has more moving parts- failure of any of them will cause it to collapse
originally posted by: logicsoda
Why would asking who profited from this be relevant at all, much less come before Occams Razor?
Not at all. In this situation Occams Razor would suggest that 23 terrorists were involved in the hijacking of four planes, two of which flew into the WTC, one into The Pentagon, and another into a field... in shorter terms, "terrorists did it".
I think that is what a "truther" refers to. At least that's what I have always understood it to mean.
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
No it doesnt. Not even a little bit.
Back to who had the motive, a bunch of well funded terrorists were smart enough to pull of the attacks but too stupid to know the US would send the army after them?
Why would terrorist WANT US troops invading the middle east?
Your interpretation of occums razor is retarded, to be kind.
So a truther is someone who believes that 9/11 was not properly investigated, as well as someone who believes mini nukes and direct energy weapons brought down the towers? There is no difference between the 2?
originally posted by: logicsoda
Yes, it does. There is no reason to believe otherwise--none whatsoever, no matter as to how hard you try to paint it.
Occam's Razor is defined merely as the most simple explanation is the most likely... in this case, terrorists did it.
We have plenty of evidence to support that case and none whatsoever to support the American government being involved in some conspiracy.
I don't think it was so much as the terrorists wanting the U.S. military to send their troops after them so much as it was about them understanding that their actions would have consequences but choosing to go ahead with doing such anyway. As far as I know there were plenty of reasons behind al-Qaeda wanting to carry out the attacks, such as the occupation of Saudi Arabia by the U.S., the aid of Israel by the U.S., and the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the U.S.
Failure to prevent consequences doesn't imply wanting particular consequences.
I have no clue. I don't think they did...
A truther is simply somebody who does not believe that the mainstream 9/11 story is the true one, hence "truther".
Text
a reply to: firerescue
Text
Controlled demolitions" depend on a precise sequences of charges detonating in a pattern to knock out critical support
columns which you just disrupted by flying plane through the area destroying the charges
Not true. This Depends on how the explosives were wired in sequance. The two Aircraft did hit both buildings quite high up, the impact dont have to damage the wireing or charges below the impact point and down to ground Level.
Both buildigs are intact form below the impact Points. Because energy always take the easiest way With least resistance.
Back to who had the motive, a bunch of well funded terrorists were smart enough to pull of the attacks but too stupid to know the US would send the army after them?