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.

 

9/11 and the Creation of an Orwellian State of Mind Worldwide

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: AmericanRealist

Washington DC is probably the 3rd most camera ready city on the planet, behind NY and London, it is rather incredulous and even fantastical that there was not a video that has surfaced showing the actual path this plane supposedly took while being piloted by an amateur highjacker at ridiculous speeds making banked turns just to go around the building only to hit the one place that was supposed to have been recently fortified to defend against just this situation. How does a plane crash into a building and not leave any evidence of bodies or luggage or engines or black boxes or show impact of the wing span?

National security? Where was the national security when the damn thing was heading for Washington airspace? They really think we are so gullible to believe this crap and guess what, if you tell a lie enough you can sell it, to some, but when I buy a car or a house I prefer to do what George Carlin does, I use my brain and actually think, I do not believe the government BS and I do not believe the media BS, the same way I do not trust the car dealer or the real estate agents.

There are termites in the foundation and the tires are dry rotted, oh and the engine has 100,000 miles on it not 35,000, and roof leaks were patched not repaired, they will leak again soon.




posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: angryhulk
I think it's hilarious.


What is hilarious is the lack of knowledge that think the building was strong enough to stop the collapse of then hold the top section up whilst it toppled over the side!



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: forthelove
that there was not a video that has surfaced showing the actual path this plane supposedly took while being piloted


Why would a camera be pointed at the sky?


How does a plane crash into a building and not leave any evidence of bodies or luggage or engines or black boxes or show impact of the wing span?


All those were shown/recovered on 9/11.... except the black boxes at thew WTC.

You really do not know much about 9/11!



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Thank you. I have seen every video there is to see that is worth watching. This one included. Yes, it is very well done, but I refrained from including videos because I wanted this to be about my own perspective, but thanks for sharing.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: angryhulk
I think it's hilarious.


What is hilarious is the lack of knowledge that think the building was strong enough to stop the collapse of then hold the top section up whilst it toppled over the side!


Of course the building was strong enough, at least to slow the 'NEAR FREEFALL' progression of the top section. Also, taking into account the conservation of energy and momentum the OS is absolutely impossible.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Gee, you wrote an OP in my OP. LOL. I do not think any of this could be prevented for the simple reason it was done intentional with very specific agendas in mind. They who are behind it, I would say accomplished 90% of what they set out to do, with the exception that they, even though they got away with it, there are a great deal of people that see though the BS. Still, not much we can do about bringing any of them to justice in this lifetime.

I will forever maintain that there is a massive conspiracy involving some very highly suspicious government officials that benefited in so many ways. Ponzi schemes can go undetected for decades if played right. This whole thing was a huge Ponzi Scheme with some nefarious doings sprinkled in and mixed up with some normalcy and hidden by some evil shenanigans.

Any way you slice it, the world changed, again, that day, as it did, the other 10 major wars that happened prior, also, brought about with agendas that the conspired and brought to fruition. Really, society just keeps falling for the same old crap just written a little different.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Wouldn't need to be pointed at the sky - that is a poor question you ask there.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:18 AM
link   
a reply to: MountainLaurel

Nothing for me to prove, really common sense dictates most of what happened and delusional attitudes do not change the evidence. Thank you, though for your support and I know much of what I said has already been put out there. This will be my only foray into this forum. The subject is not new, but the memory of that day and the ensuing results are never going to go away and they will continue to pretend on many fronts, especially in the history books that our children will read for generations to come, that we were attacked by "kamikazes" of a Muslim kind and that is incredibly sad and racist at it's very core.

I would prefer our children had the real truth, but as with my generation, we were forced to study and take tests to get passing grades whether it was true or not. Much like the religious doctrines that we have been force fed throughout history, too, the story told is 90% fiction sprinkled with a little fairy dust of truth.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Never in documented history has an aluminum plane with jet fuel brought down a steel skyscraper, ever, much less 2 and a third that was not even hit by one fell just for the hell of it. The mathematics and the physics of what they claim happened just do not happen the way they say they did.

There have been buildings with much less structural integrity than these 3 that have burned for hours, why didn't they collapse? Because they were not hit by planes with jet fuel? No. Because a normal fire cannot reach the temperature needed to melt steel without assistance and jet fuel basically evaporates very quickly.

Remember fire codes? Buildings have to meet very specific requirements for fire safety and those 3 buildings that just went poof, were extremely well protected with fire retardant and safety codes to prevent this very situation from happening. I mean 1&2 were designed to withstand multiple situations, including an airplane hitting them, even the engineers that designed them came out and said so, the honeycomb construction was done in such a way that the only way to bring these buildings down would be a direct hit from a nuclear bomb or a major earthquake directly underneath or very close and 7 was designed to be the most secure building in NY because it housed the MCC and CiA and SEC and a number of very highly classified material was stored there. No way that building comes down because of office fires.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: forthelove
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Never in documented history has an aluminum plane with jet fuel brought down a steel skyscraper,


But every steel skyscraper hit by a high speed jet airliner has collapsed....


The mathematics and the physics of what they claim happened just do not happen the way they say they did.


So care to show us that maths and physics??


Because a normal fire cannot reach the temperature needed to melt steel


Why are you going on about melted steel? Where do you get that nonsense from exactly?


including an airplane hitting them, even the engineers that designed them came out and said so,


Care to show us that comment from the engineer that designed the buildings?



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: angryhulk

Maybe dumb is harsh, but certainly not exercising good old common sense, but hey physics is not for everyone. There would have been resistance that caused the building to topple over rather than fall straight down, not one or two times, this happened to three building in the span of 10 hours, and 1 & 2 fell very quickly. Just does not happen without assistance to alleviate the resistance.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: forthelove
a reply to: angryhulk

Maybe dumb is harsh, but certainly not exercising good old common sense, but hey physics is not for everyone. There would have been resistance that caused the building to topple over rather than fall straight down, not one or two times, this happened to three building in the span of 10 hours, and 1 & 2 fell very quickly. Just does not happen without assistance to alleviate the resistance.


Not dumb, numb. By numb I mean anything outside of MSM is excluded from their train of thought. They cannot think for themselves.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:44 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

LOL. I can just picture you jumping up and down and having hysterics over this. Look, believe what you want. That is your right, but get real, if you seriously think that you have provided anything to prove your version of these events is plausible, you need some psychiatric assistance and I mean that sincerely.

I am quite confident that no matter how you slice this pie, it was made with rotten apples and worms, and you swallowed it whole.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce
Why are you going on about melted steel? Where do you get that nonsense from exactly?


Actually, firefighters reported seeing pockets of (lava-like) molten steel throughout the debris.

That 'nonsense' was reported from the mouths of those who were there searching for bodies.
edit on 8/1/16 by angryhulk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Sure they collapsed, but the how and why is way off the mark, it was not because planes with jet fuel, it was because someone rigged the damn things to Xplode.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: angryhulk

Yeah the ground zero wasn't smoldering for months, that was my imagination. Videos with molten steel pouring down the sides of the buildings.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: forthelove
it was because someone rigged the damn things to Xplode.


But no one noticed all the explosives and cabling being installed
No one noticed the holes knocked in the walls to wire up the building
The bomb sniffing dogs did not detect the explosives...
There was no blast recorded on the nearby seismographs
There was no sound from these mythical explosives,
There was no blast effect from these explosives,
No proof of explosives was found at Fresh Kills, no detonators, none of the km of wire that would have been needed...



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: forthelove
Videos with molten steel pouring down the sides of the buildings.


how do you know that was steel? It was coming from where the lead/acid batteries were, so most likely lead.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: forthelove
it was because someone rigged the damn things to Xplode.


But no one noticed all the explosives and cabling being installed
No one noticed the holes knocked in the walls to wire up the building
The bomb sniffing dogs did not detect the explosives...

Actually I believe Marvin Bush is (or was) part owner of the security company that was responsible for United and American Airlines and the World Trade Center Complex. You might not find that significant but I do.



There was no blast recorded on the nearby seismographs
There was no sound from these mythical explosives,
There was no blast effect from these explosives,
No proof of explosives was found at Fresh Kills, no detonators, none of the km of wire that would have been needed...

I thought thousands of onlookers reported hearing explosions, and witnessed blast effects, i.e. horizontal jets of dust.

It's funny you mention no proof of explosions. I'ts also funny that 'they' removed all of the Building 7 debris before a formal investigation could take place.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: angryhulk
Actually I believe Marvin Bush is (or was) part owner of the security company that was responsible for United and American Airlines and the World Trade Center Complex. You might not find that significant but I do.


Your "evidence" for that claim is what exactly?


I thought thousands of onlookers reported hearing explosions, and witnessed blast effects, i.e. horizontal jets of dust.


Where else would the air inside the building go? Remember, those jets happened during the collapse, not before!


I'ts also funny that 'they' removed all of the Building 7 debris before a formal investigation could take place.


It was examined on site and at Fresh Kills.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join