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.

 

Mind Explaining These Things To Me?

page: 18
0
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Right then. If we're just using "squibs" as a generic term for "explosion", then sure. There were explosions. Of course there were!

This by itself however in no way proves that those explosions were caused by bombs, charges, TNT, or any other substance. That is really the bit that's not convincing me...that those little explosions were actually planted deliberately.

Explosion does not equal "deliberate".


What do you suppose might have caused them? Keep in mind that some shot out well over a hundred feet laterally into the air, and that these explosions were only visible in the first place because of the concrete dust, etc. that was carried out into the air as a result.




posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by AgentSmith
The chances of him being ambidextrous are far more likely than pigs ever growing wings.
You want to believe that a complicated array of explosives were installed into the WTC towers without anyone noticing, but you find the idea that Osama might be ambidextrous is outragous!


I don't find it outrageous as much as I don't see any evidence in the least to support it.


But there is evidence to support it, he's reported as being left-handed but he has also seen to be writing with his right hand.....



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Yeah sure, with your explanation, EVERYONE can be Osama Bin laden.

Not that it's important weither he's writing left or right. It's bloody obvious that person is NOT Osama Bin Laden.



Back to the squibs ... if they aren't explosions, how do you explain their occurance in relation to the collapse (20 floors below the collapse)?
Are you saying that the floors are falling behind the windows without us noticing it ?



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   


What do you suppose might have caused them? Keep in mind that some shot out well over a hundred feet laterally into the air, and that these explosions were only visible in the first place because of the concrete dust, etc. that was carried out into the air as a result.


I have utterly no idea! I'm not about to pretend I understand every mechanism involved (though I do know enough basic chemistry and physics to know what's likely and what isn't), and I'm not about to spout the pro/anti-conspiracy line du jour simply based on what (insert website here) says.

I can absolutely say with complete confidence that I have no idea exactly what happened to cause those explosions.

I do know, however, that objects can behave in a number of ways when they're involved in an explosion; having watched the videos of "controlled demolitions", "squibs in action", etc etc, it just doesn't convince me that the WTC explosions were caused by any deliberate mechanism (other than the results of rather large hunks of aircraft crashing into the buildings).

I keep falling back on Ockham's Razor....you know? Perhaps more importantly though, I haven't seen anything, really, to support the claim that the explosions were deliberate. A lot of claims and theories - but very little in the way of evidence.

(and here we have someone waving both arms in the air declaring she absolutely does not know what happened. Whoda thunk it?)



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Most demolitions are implosions, the two towers basically exploded.
This was probably done on purpose, cause it creates the massive dustcloud to cover up the squibs/explosions in the first place, making it less obvious at first sight and more dramatic.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Most demolitions are implosions, the two towers basically exploded.
This was probably done on purpose, cause it creates the massive dustcloud to cover up the squibs/explosions in the first place, making it less obvious at first sight and more dramatic.



"Probably" doesn't quite do it for me in this case.

However...

You said that most demolitions are implosions. The WTC basically exploded (your words, not mine).

Are you saying it was implosion followed by explosion? (Just to clarify)



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
No all I'm saying is that, different from normal demolitions, they wouldn't try their best to stop debris from flying everywhere.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
No all I'm saying is that, different from normal demolitions, they wouldn't try their best to stop debris from flying everywhere.



Your story is forever changing. If it was a demolition it would most likely be an implosion. Demolitions never explode, they always implode to prevent collateral damage. But, then again, if you think Bush is an evil madman bent on killing as many people as possible I'm sure he could arrange an explosion.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by AgentSmith
The chances of him being ambidextrous are far more likely than pigs ever growing wings.
You want to believe that a complicated array of explosives were installed into the WTC towers without anyone noticing, but you find the idea that Osama might be ambidextrous is outragous!


I don't find it outrageous as much as I don't see any evidence in the least to support it.


But there is evidence to support it, he's reported as being left-handed but he has also seen to be writing with his right hand.....


Wow.


Osama is left handed according to CIA intelligence. The dude in the video is right-handed. Therefore, Osama is actually right-handed!


Screw the possibility that the tape was faked, and that it was never aired on al Jazeera as most tapes, but "found" by our military, allegedly in the basement of a bombed out house. And disregard the fact that the faces don't match, and that the picture is suspiciously blurry to a level of suck that is new for Bin Laden's video crew.

Yeah, screw all that, because it doesn't fit your bill. You don't want to believe it. You want to believe Osama admitted it. So you come to conclusions on ridiculous logic.

That the man in the tape uses his right hand is in no way proof that it was Bin Laden. It only contradicts Bin Laden's known behaviors and characteristics.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
I can absolutely say with complete confidence that I have no idea exactly what happened to cause those explosions.


So then you must be open to the possibility of demolition squibs?

It follows that since you have no idea what they were, and cannot prove that they were not demolition squibs, then the possibility must still be there for you. Otherwise you are not being fair with the information, and not "denying ignorance," but rather hoping for a reinforcement of your current beliefs, for whatever reason.


I do know, however, that objects can behave in a number of ways when they're involved in an explosion; having watched the videos of "controlled demolitions", "squibs in action", etc etc, it just doesn't convince me that the WTC explosions were caused by any deliberate mechanism (other than the results of rather large hunks of aircraft crashing into the buildings).

I keep falling back on Ockham's Razor....you know?


Same here.


Perhaps more importantly though, I haven't seen anything, really, to support the claim that the explosions were deliberate. A lot of claims and theories - but very little in the way of evidence.


Their very existance is evidence. That's the problem they present to the official story.

Gravity-driven collapses from structural damage never present such explosions. Neither NIST nor FEMA has even tried to touch the subject. The official-story explanations, which have received much scientific input from many intelligent, albeit deceived people, haven't even tried to explain the squibs. So far, the explanations from the "debunkers" have gone from "they're doctored video" (untrue), to "it was compressed air" (impossible), and now apparently at least one person here has claimed that they were smudges on the screen!

So, as I said, these things (squibs) don't occur from gravity-driven collapses. Nothing like them occurs from gravity-driven collapses.

In demolition, squibs are commonplace. They are detonations that go off at the wrong time and stick out. It's that simple.

So there are two possibilities when you look at the squibs. You can say, as you do, that you do not know what they were, or you can eventually accept them as deliberate explosions, inevitably from charges that had been placed in the buildings beforehand.

If there were any more logical explanations then I'm sure they would have surfaced by now. Instead, the squibs have only been ignored by the mainstream. The only actual logical explanation is they were deliberate. Otherwise, you would have to call ignorance on them.

[edit on 2-9-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTerminator
Your story is forever changing. If it was a demolition it would most likely be an implosion. Demolitions never explode, they always implode to prevent collateral damage. But, then again, if you think Bush is an evil madman bent on killing as many people as possible I'm sure he could arrange an explosion.


Demolitions never explode huh ? Well and FIRES never bring down buildings. But guess what...


First of all, my story never changed.
Second, you're basically repeating what I said.
And I don't think that a couple extra victims from flying debris ontop of the 3000 would matter now would they?

Maybe you should actually think before you blurt something out and try to ridicule someone. Did you really assume they sat at the table laying out their plans to demolish the towers with all those people inside, but then decided to place the demolitions carefully to make sure nobody got hurt?



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   





posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Must of been one of those Tora Bora Rhinoplasty jobs. You can't deny these men share a different nose at the very least. This tape came out 2 months after Bin Laden's last authentic interview in which he claimed 9/11 was a zionist attack.
A smoking gun video, released soon after Bin Laden is reported dead in Pakistan press is pure propaganda. Ever since this video, Bin Laden has 'claimed' he was responsable yet no one has varified Bin Laden's existence since Dec 2001, the date of his reported death. Dead men can't talk back.





posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I've never really looked into the OBL admittance stuff. Is there anything apart from these?

* A faked video starring Fake-o-Laden - See also the trials starring Fake-o-Hussein, coming to an international court near you.

* Islamic blog/website entries - Even easier to fake than video. I wonder if they used names like "OBL9-11MUAHAHA".

*CIA/FBI say-so - If you believe anything these crooks have to say these days, you should get your head checked.

Anything other than the above?



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I've never really looked into the OBL admittance stuff. Is there anything apart from these?

* A faked video starring Fake-o-Laden - See also the trials starring Fake-o-Hussein, coming to an international court near you.

* Islamic blog/website entries - Even easier to fake than video. I wonder if they used names like "OBL9-11MUAHAHA".

*CIA/FBI say-so - If you believe anything these crooks have to say these days, you should get your head checked.

Anything other than the above?


I think there was one more video released in 2004 showing Bin Laden that's also questionable. It appears to be the same guy from the obvious fake-o, but they dressed him better and made it look like a more typical Bin Laden video.



But yeah, that's about it as far as his "admittance" has gone.


Interview with Bin Laden on September 28th, 2001:


UMMAT: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be? Usama bin Laden

USAMA BIN LADEN: [insert "praise Allah" ramble] ...

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims.


www.robert-fisk.com...

Hmmm..

Osama on Sept. 28: 'I've already told you I didn't do it. Israel or a faction within the US probably did.'

Osama later on the fishy video: 'Yep, I did it, and it sure was fun!
'




posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
well, this seems to be going nowhere, as usual

but I'll post this anyways

bellaciao.org...

I'm sorry , but a gov't who confiscates video of an attack and never releases it

who does a crummy job of forensics

who ships evidence off to commies

who has multiple hi-res cameras at the pentagon and gives a crummy enlarged unidentifiable image as proof

who never held anyone accountable [ cuz everything went well ? ]

who intimidated ATTA witnesses into silence about what they saw

who had supposed hijackers calling and claiming they were alive !

who lied about shooting down the supposedly crashed PA jet

and much much much much more...


I say , if they're NOT GUILTY then , just exactly what are they ?

eh ?


oh yeah , and tell the folks at hiroshima and nagasaki that secrets can't be kept...



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by toasted

who does a crummy job of forensics


Which forensics? Relating to which incident? Which part of the investigation?



who had supposed hijackers calling and claiming they were alive !


Even from a cynic's point of view, this one isn't difficult to explain in one of a few ways. Identities were allegedly "stolen"; it's also not unusual for similar names to be used and misused (highlighted by the BBC, who first said one of the hijackers was alive and well, and then clarified that the guy alive and well actually had a name which was different by one or two letters, from the name used by the alleged hijacker)....but I suppose my bigger question is this:

Even if the names which were released weren't correct, were mistaken identities or whatever, why is this proof that hijackers didn't commit these acts?



who lied about shooting down the supposedly crashed PA jet


Am I missing proof of this? I haven't seen any reliable evidence that this plane was actually shot down. Help me out here?



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by toasted

who does a crummy job of forensics


Which forensics?


Spot on.



Originally posted by Tinkleflower


who had supposed hijackers calling and claiming they were alive !


Even from a cynic's point of view, this one isn't difficult to explain in one of a few ways. Identities were allegedly "stolen"; it's also not unusual for similar names to be used and misused (highlighted by the BBC, who first said one of the hijackers was alive and well, and then clarified that the guy alive and well actually had a name which was different by one or two letters, from the name used by the alleged hijacker)....but I suppose my bigger question is this:

Even if the names which were released weren't correct, were mistaken identities or whatever, why is this proof that hijackers didn't commit these acts?


Yeah right, stolen identities, stolen passwords, wrong names. You know what's that called, pulling stuff out of your *ss.
Especially when some of them are "on video" but then show up anyway. Don't you just love how typos and video-evidence goes hand in hand ?

If someone presents you a list like he did and you're only able to counter 2 questions in a very poor way it might be time to start looking at the other option don't you think ? You know there's hundreds of points like he presented that still remain unanswered.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Yeah right, stolen identities, stolen passwords, wrong names. You know what's that called, pulling stuff out of your *ss.


Actually, it's not. It's called "questioning the validity of unproven claims". Pretty simple concept, really. Or are we now going to pretend that the owners of those originally stolen identities are also lying? All of them? And their families?

"Terrorism and identity theft go hand in hand, experts say. The al-Qaida training manual includes provisions for trainees to leave camp with five fake personas, says Collins, who uses a copy of the manual to train law enforcement officials. Terrorists are regularly schooled in the art of subsisting off credit card fraud while living in the United States, Judith Collins said. "

(Collins is an identity theft expert and professor at Michigan State University).

She's lying too, right?

(You do realise, right, that the questioning of hijacker identities can actually be used to support the conspiracy theory?, and not just the government's official line?)



You know there's hundreds of points like he presented that still remain unanswered.


Yup, there are still points which I would like to see answered, too.

But, unlike many here, I'm not prepared to jump into either of the "it was ALL the government's doing" or the "it was Al Qaeda from start to finish" pools at this point. I'm still questioning, and I'm still not ready to believe it was either fully orchestrated by the US government, or fully orchestrated solely by Al Qaeda.

The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle; I'm just yet to see enough proof in either direction.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
But, unlike many here, I'm not prepared to jump into either of the "it was ALL the government's doing" or the "it was Al Qaeda from start to finish" pools at this point. I'm still questioning, and I'm still not ready to believe it was either fully orchestrated by the US government, or fully orchestrated solely by Al Qaeda.

The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle; I'm just yet to see enough proof in either direction.


Come on TF, the only one you're fooling with that statement is yourself. Every post of yours is questioning the theories and evidences put forth by those who doubt the official story. Never do you appear to question the "facts" presented by those who have swallowed the government's version of the events. No malice in my words here, just an honest observation based on what I've seen.







 
0
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join