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: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I have investigated the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ive been to multiple websites all explaining their theories about how the government was behind 911.

I have concluded that the theories were very weak and had lots of bias in them. Right now, The theory that Osama bin laden and 19 highjackers crashed a plain throught the WTC is still the best fitting theory with all available evidence on the 911 event.

all the websites didnt present any real smoking gun evidence. only specualtion, a speculation is not proof that the government actually did it, it is just an idea.

The conspiracy sites also had incredible bias not only in their presentation of their theory, but also in the articles within the entire website. Bias is a telltale sign of propaganda. This lead me to beleive that these sites werent presenting an unbiased view that the government could have been behind 911, but rather that they had a hidden agenda against the government and a commitment to persuade as many people as they can that the government is evil etc. For example, goto howstuffworks.com and look up "how evolution works". THis is an example of how an unbiased presentation of a theory should be. It explains how and why evolution should work, :::AND:::: it also explains how and why evolution may not actually be true be pointing out holes in the theory. It is an unbiased presentation of the theory. NOT ONE WEBSITE PRESENTED AN UNBIASED PRESENTATION OF THE DEMOLTION THEORY ON 9/11. I did not see any criticisms of possible weaknesses in the theory anywhere. The people who made the websites intended to leave out these criticims becuase they wanted to make it very persuasive, they wanted it to be EFFECTIVE PROPAGANDA.

Much of the evidence was weak and made sense only if you didnt think about it. For example, there is the point that there was fine powder in the streets of new york. If it hade been a gravity driven destruction, then we should expect there to be big chunks of rock and debris. but the photos showed only fine powder lining the streets, there were no chunks of debris which we should have seen in it was do to gravity. Now, this makes sense....if you dont think about it. But the photo and the claim is actually a slimy trick. THe photo is real, and the claim is valid, however, the photos were taken in the streets, not imedietly at the base of the towers. Debris came in all sizes, big, small, medium and powder, BUT ONLY FINE POWDER WOULD HAVE BEEN LIGHT ENOUGH TO TRAVEL ALL THE WAY TO THE STREETS OF NEWYORK, THUS FINE POWDER IS THE ONLY THING YOU WILL SEE IN THE STREETS OF NEWYORK. Rocks and larger debris succumbed to gravity long before they could make it to the streets. So gravity naturally selected that only fine powder would line the streets, and the slimy pushers of the demolition theory took advantage of this fact to hopefully persuade their audience who might not take the time to think about it.



[edit on 24-8-2005 by bob2000]




posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Bob, you are right. Obviously the finer powder took longer to settle and was distributed farther. Also, pictures of fine powder are more dramatic than pictures of larger chunks of concrete. Thus there are a preponderance of photos of the powder on the streets.

Here is a photo of fine powder and a few chunks of concrete on the roof of a parked car. It is a close up, and we have no real sense of scale. In addition, it is unknown just how close this was to ground zero when it was taken. however, it does show that there was a distribution in the size of the debris and confirms that there were larger pieces and it was not just all fine powder.



www.donwiss.com...



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Instead of visiting "conspiracy" websites. Why don't you read up on some of the things going on around 9/11 instead of focusing on 'evidence' from that day?

Alot of evidence is biased I'll grant you that, but if you look at the bigger picture, all that bias, from neither side, is no longer relevant.

Alot of people have been studying how the US behaves when it comes to intelligence/politics/terrorism for decades. You don't need to read any website or watch any of the videos of that day if you listen to a few of those people.

Or do you really think we get all our 'evidence' from Von Kleist or Alex Jones ?



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Instead of visiting "conspiracy" websites. Why don't you read up on some of the things going on around 9/11 instead of focusing on 'evidence' from that day?

Alot of evidence is biased I'll grant you that, but if you look at the bigger picture, all that bias, from neither side, is no longer relevant.

Alot of people have been studying how the US behaves when it comes to intelligence/politics/terrorism for decades. You don't need to read any website or watch any of the videos of that day if you listen to a few of those people.

Or do you really think we get all our 'evidence' from Von Kleist or Alex Jones ?



Well we know you don't get it from the likes of 'National Geographic', don't we?



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I really hope you read all this.

So you believe that the US is power hungry enough to kill 3,000 of it's citizens only to destroy one of its biggest land marks and through the whole country into an economic crisis? It makes absolutely no sense what so ever. I believe that was your quote.

Anyway here is my reply.

What you need to do is see who gains from acts of terroism in your country. Very shortly after 9/11 The Patriot Act was delivered. This gives the Federal Government alot more powers for arrest and detaining. Even with slight suspicion you can be pulled in and not given your rights to legal representation and detained for more than 24 hours without charge.

Another factor that gets the conspiracy theories rolling is what companies make and made money from it. Massive financial gains were made as a result of 9/11, from insider trading leading up to 9/11. The insurance pay out for the Trade complex just a few months after the owner bought the whole complex was seen as a smoking gun.

The Carlyle Group went from the number 5 arms manufactorer in the US to number 1 in the world(Look at the board of directors and whose connected to the government)

Halliburtons where Dick Cheney was head of(until 2000) but still is an "advisor" makes a huge amount of money from supplying troops with rations and communications whilst in Afghanistan and Iraq. Coincidentally they also got the contract to build the pipeline through these countries. The one that is drawing reserves from the Caspian Sea.

Another point is that the administrations and departments changing of stories so frequently as to what they knew before. The Presidents claim of seeing the FIRST plane hit before he went into the classroom. Still not questioned by Fix News or CNN.

I believe it took just a few days maybe a week to launch an enquiry into JFK. Why did Bush stall for so long before launching an enquiry into something that should of been done before the Patriot Act came out.

Revealing a lie does not necessarily lead to establishing the truth.

In fact the experience of the 9/11 Commission which had a mandate to investigate the September 11 attacks has proved exactly the opposite.

We know that the Bush administration had numerous "intelligence warnings". We know they had "intelligence" which confirmed that terrorists had the capacity of hijacking aircrafts and using them to target buildings.

Attorney General John Ashcroft had apparently been warned in August 2001 by the FBI to avoid commercial airlines, but this information was not made public.

The Pentagon had conducted a full fledged exercise on an airplane crashing into the Pentagon.

We also know that senior Bush officials including Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice lied under oath to the 9/11 commission, when they stated that they had no information or forewarning of impending terrorist attacks.

Bush and Cheney never went under oath. Had their interviews behind closed doors and any transcripts were to be vetted by Security personnel.

But we also know, from carefully documented research that:

There were stand-down orders on 9/11. The US Air force did not intervene.

There was a cover-up of the WTC and Pentagon investigation. The WTC rubble was confiscated. The plane debris at the Pentagon disappeared. Mystery surrounds WTC building 7, which collapsed (or was "pulled" down in the afternoon of 9/11)

The unfolding consensus is: "They knew but failed to act".

Yet in a bitter irony, the very process of revealing these lies and expressing public outrage has contributed to reinforcing the 9/11 cover-up.

"Revealing the lies" serves to present Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an "outside enemy", which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus.

The presumption is that these forewarnings and intelligence briefs emanating from the intelligence establishment constitute a true and unbiased representation of the terrorist threat.

Meanwhile, the history of Al Qaeda and the CIA has been shoved to the background. The fact that successive US governments since the Soviet-Afghan war have supported and abetted the Islamic terror network is no longer mentioned, for obvious reasons. It would break the consensus regarding Al Qaeda as the outside enemy of America, which is a crucial building block of the entire National Security doctrine.

This central proposition that Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11 serves to justify everything else including the Patriot Act, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, the spiraling defense and homeland security budgets, the detention of thousands of people of Muslim faith on trumped up charges, the arrest and deportation to Guantanamo of alleged "enemy combatants"

Does this explain anything for you?

www.globalresearch.ca...
www.globalresearch.ca...
www.globalresearch.ca...
www.globalresearch.ca...
www.globalresearch.ca...
www.globalresearch.ca...

I hope it does



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It is a close up, and we have no real sense of scale. In addition, it is unknown just how close this was to ground zero when it was taken.

...



Nor is it possible to tell much else about it! From all we can tell from that photo, it's possible that none of that is from a floor slab at all.

But even if those two chunks were from a floor slab - you still understand that the amount of dust to actual chunks is extremely disproportionate, right?


Also, Bob,

You might want to check out this site. It actually does criticize both sides of the argument.

For example, you'll find the site criticizing theories of EM weapons here, criticizing theories of radiant projectiles here, and here the site exposes various flaws in several videos on 9/11.

Again, those are just examples. There are more if you look over the information there. The author of the site has no problem rejecting parts of the conspiracy theory that he doesn't find plausible.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Still failing to grasp the idea that gravity will not allow large chunks to travel as far as fine dust arn't you? Large chunks don't get carried a long way by the wind, dust does..
Of course as it was done using explosives there are huge chunks thrown huge distances out from the original footprint. Oh.. wait a minute there arn't... just the fine dust.. because of the explosives again which only made fine dust and confined the large pieces to the building footprint..

oh err.. er.. I'm getting confused.. too many conflicting ideas changing to suit the crappy argument...

EDIT:

And what's the EM theory (I know you don't believe it) but god damn some people shouldn't be given the privelige to think, they'd be dangerous!..


The weapon would have needed to direct the energy into regions within the towers and move that locus[sic] down to produce the descending pattern of destruction observed in each tower. How could such a weapon deliver energy to such zones without producing visible disturbances to objects in the beam's path?


I know it's debunking it anyway, but how about the obvious fact that it wouldn't affect anything physically in that way anyway?

This isn't frickin Star Wars.. geez!


[edit on 24-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Actually, I do look at sources other than just "conspiracy theory" websites and "independant news websites". I also look at the big picture, I dont just look at just what happend on 9/11 only. I look at everything that has happened all the way back even before world war II all kinds of relevant facts. It seems the more I look beyond just what happened on 9/11 and the few days before it, the more data I get, and the more improbable the "demolitions hypothesis" becomes and the more probable that 19 hijackers and OSBL were really behind it.

One thing Id like to point out is that just becuase the demolition theory can fit with every possible peice of evidence availiable does not mean it is the truth, there are an INFINITE number of theories that can fit with all the evidence that we have. so why is the demolition theory so special? why not give the UFO theories credit as well? or the ones that say isreal was behind 911? WHY DO MOST PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD HAVE AN IRRATIONAL PREFERANCE FOR MORE COMPLEX THEORIES (such as the demolitions hypothesis) AS OPPOSED TO MORE SIMPLE ONES LIKE THE BUILDING COLLAPSED DUE TO A HOT FIRE AND AN ENGINEERING FLAW?

THis "irrational thinking" is justified with "Im just questioning things, in not a blind follower". The hipocracy in that answer is that they arent questioning the alternative theories as well. another answer is "many governments have commited atrocities on their own people, why should we beleive we are any different?" While that is a true statement, but it is also true that many governments dont commit atrocities on their own people, there are good governments and bad ones, not just bad ones. and I ask why one should prefer that our governmen be the guilty one rather than the innocent one?

oh, and by the way,
"this site" aka 911research was one of the main "conspiracy theory/independant news websites" that I investigated, and like I said, that one just like all the others does have major bias in their presentation. If you call that unbiased, then you must really want to beleive the demolitions theory. That website selectively put forward evidence that fit's their theory, but leaves out evidence that contridicts it. Ill give it that it is mild compared to other conspiracy sites that have extreme bias and outrageous articles. But it still has bias, and therefore makes it a propaganda campeign rather than a scientific "research" that the website claims it is. just one trivial example: 911research refers to the US government as "the empire" instead of calling them "the us government". They use that name to stigmatize the government and help their propaganda theme. An unbiased presentation wouldnt be stigmatizing the government like that. dont even get me started on selection and omission of evidence.

[edit on 24-8-2005 by bob2000]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Of course as it was done using explosives there are huge chunks thrown huge distances out from the original footprint. Oh.. wait a minute there arn't... just the fine dust.. because of the explosives again which only made fine dust and confined the large pieces to the building footprint..


[edit on 24-8-2005 by AgentSmith]


Cmon...you know that the explosives used were small shaped demolition charges used to cut through the steel.

By the way...isn't it odd that JEB BUSH owned the security company that was respobsible for renovating the entire WTC complez's security systems directly before 9/11?

Did you also know that there were exposed steel structural columns in mechanical rooms situated in between floors?

These rooms were suppose to be high security because of their obvious sensitive nature to the operation and structure of the building itself.

Of couse, with the security systems being "renovated" by Jeb Bush, anyone could have gained entry. Makes you think anyway.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Still failing to grasp the idea that gravity will not allow large chunks to travel as far as fine dust arn't you? Large chunks don't get carried a long way by the wind, dust does..




Still failing to grasp the oddity of there being so much fine dust and powder at all, aren't you?

Btw, there is nothing objective and scientific about your posts anymore. They've become the equivalent of disinfo tactics. Try to produce some scientific meat to go with your words.


Originally posted by bob2000
It seems the more I look beyond just what happened on 9/11 and the few days before it, the more data I get, and the more improbable the "demolitions hypothesis" becomes and the more probable that 19 hijackers and OSBL were really behind it.


Rest assured that many others here are at least just as informed as you are, and we have had no trouble coming to another conclusion with all the evidence that's been laid out in front of us.


One thing Id like to point out is that just becuase the demolition theory can fit with every possible peice of evidence availiable does not mean it is the truth, there are an INFINITE number of theories that can fit with all the evidence that we have. so why is the demolition theory so special?


Because it answers the most questions in the most scientific fashion. The gravity theory does not explain the squibs, for example, among many other very odd features of the collapses. Whether you like it or not, NIST won't even touch the squibs, as they utterly contradict official theory, despite their appearance all over video footage.

Your posts are also the equivalent of disinfo tactics, Bob, as you are not supplying any real scientific contribution to this thread either. Words are cheap, and we all know how to rant on our personal beliefs.


THis "irrational thinking" is justified with "Im just questioning things, in not a blind follower". The hipocracy in that answer is that they arent questioning the alternative theories as well.


How do you know? Hypocrit. You've assumed that the gravity theory is the only logical answer, and closed your mind to the possibility that you are wrong.

And btw, I showed you a site in my last post that isn't so biased, and criticizes parts of the conspiracy with little to no evidence. Check it out.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
yeah, um, Ive been pretty careful about what I have been saying so far. I know that alot of things I could have said would need to be backed up with scientific evidence. I chose not to say those things yet becuase I dont want long posts.

So far, I havent said much that needs any scientific back up. Could you please point out what things I have said so far that need scientific back up? Do I really need to point out that dust will travel farther than larger debris scientifically? Or was it my point that an INFINITE number of theories can fit available evidence? Do I need to back that up too? I havent said much so far for the sake of a short post. Im aware that many things will need to be backed up scientifically. Im also aware that alot of people are "as well informed as me" and have come to different conclusions. I just know how to evaluate a hypothesis better than most people


Im just getting warmed up.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bob2000
Actually, I do look at sources other than just "conspiracy theory" websites and "independant news websites". I also look at the big picture, I dont just look at just what happend on 9/11 only. I look at everything that has happened all the way back even before world war II all kinds of relevant facts. It seems the more I look beyond just what happened on 9/11 and the few days before it, the more data I get, and the more improbable the "demolitions hypothesis" becomes and the more probable that 19 hijackers and OSBL were really behind it.

One thing Id like to point out is that just becuase the demolition theory can fit with every possible peice of evidence availiable does not mean it is the truth, there are an INFINITE number of theories that can fit with all the evidence that we have. so why is the demolition theory so special? why not give the UFO theories credit as well? or the ones that say isreal was behind 911? WHY DO MOST PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD HAVE AN IRRATIONAL PREFERANCE FOR MORE COMPLEX THEORIES (such as the demolitions hypothesis) AS OPPOSED TO MORE SIMPLE ONES LIKE THE BUILDING COLLAPSED DUE TO A HOT FIRE AND AN ENGINEERING FLAW?


Because that isn't a simple explanation. It's what the people want to hear. They don't want to live in a world where their government is the main threat.
A collapse like those on S11 never happend before, it happend three times in NY in one day, under suspicious circumstances, to say the least. That's why alot of people don't buy it and want an independent investigation.
I'm not even talking about all the coincidences happening on that day or before 9/11.


Originally posted by bob2000
THis "irrational thinking" is justified with "Im just questioning things, in not a blind follower". The hipocracy in that answer is that they arent questioning the alternative theories as well. another answer is "many governments have commited atrocities on their own people, why should we beleive we are any different?" While that is a true statement, but it is also true that many governments dont commit atrocities on their own people, there are good governments and bad ones, not just bad ones. and I ask why one should prefer that our governmen be the guilty one rather than the innocent one?


You are right, alot of people seem to have lost their objective view on the matter. I think alot of this is caused by frustration on both sides, after all you see what you want to see.
Don't forget that this has been going on for years, and over time alot of people got so convinced that when someone opposes their view this is seen as an insult or as a chance to insult.
"Why don't you see what I see, are you blind or stupid?"
This is why it's necessary to step away from all the planes, dustclouds, explosions and whatnot frome time to time.

To answer your second question .. I don't think anyone prefers a guilty US government. But listen to the reply a few posts above this one from MrDog I believe, and you'll see why alot of people tend to go for the guilty Bush version instead of the guilty OBL version.
It is by far the most reasonable and most logical explanation.

This doesn't mean we believe Osama is a pink fluffy bunny or that terrorism doesn't exist.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Bob,

If you're "just getting warmed up" then I would appreciate it, as I'm sure all of us would, if you'd just get down to business. We've all had plenty of time to reflect upon both the evidence and implications of our ideas.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Still failing to grasp the oddity of there being so much fine dust and powder at all, aren't you?


1. Fine dust is the exact opposite of what would be created if there was a large explosion at all.

2. You don't know much about physics do you? A collapse of a building that big would create tremendous force, enough to grind all of the concrete to fine powder. Besides, how does the amount of fine powder support your conspiracy theory?


Because it answers the most questions in the most scientific fashion. The gravity theory does not explain the squibs, for example, among many other very odd features of the collapses. Whether you like it or not, NIST won't even touch the squibs, as they utterly contradict official theory, despite their appearance all over video footage


There are no squibs!! The only "evidence" of squibs I have seen is a little smudge coming out horizontally from the tower. If you watch the closer up video it is quite clear that the cause of collapse was the crumbling of the outer collumns and the flexing of the steel bars within the building, not explosions. Also, even if it was an explosion then why not say it was the result of the extreme heat reaching a pocket of fuel from the airplane?


How do you know? Hypocrit. You've assumed that the gravity theory is the only logical answer, and closed your mind to the possibility that you are wrong


The gravity theory IS the most logical answer. It is supported by professional engineers and the evidence for "squibs" is dubious at best. Prove me wrong if you can.


The insurance pay out for the Trade complex just a few months after the owner bought the whole complex was seen as a smoking gun.


Or just a coincedence...


Another point is that the administrations and departments changing of stories so frequently as to what they knew before. The Presidents claim of seeing the FIRST plane hit before he went into the classroom. Still not questioned by Fix News or CNN.


Where are these changing stories? And when did Bush say that he saw the first plane hit before he went into the classroom? That is impossible because he had been in the classroom for a long time before the first plane hit.


There were stand-down orders on 9/11. The US Air force did not intervene.


When they discovered what was going on the most certainly did intervene. They scrambled a few fighters after the trade centers were hit but there were miscommunications and the fighters headed toward new york instead of washington, I believe.


Meanwhile, the history of Al Qaeda and the CIA has been shoved to the background. The fact that successive US governments since the Soviet-Afghan war have supported and abetted the Islamic terror network is no longer mentioned, for obvious reasons. It would break the consensus regarding Al Qaeda as the outside enemy of America, which is a crucial building block of the entire National Security doctrine.


That is false. Yes, the US did supply the afghan resistence during the war against the soviets. Once Bin Laden started Al-Queda we disconnected all ties with him and in the 1990's tried to assasinate him.


This central proposition that Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11 serves to justify everything else including the Patriot Act, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, the spiraling defense and homeland security budgets, the detention of thousands of people of Muslim faith on trumped up charges, the arrest and deportation to Guantanamo of alleged "enemy combatants"


Or you could say that the Patriot Act was a result of the 9/11 attacks in which we try to prevent ourselves from another 9/11. That is a perfectly good and obvious answer. And what's with the terrorists at Guantanamo bay? Whats the trouble there?

Listen guys. When researching you are looking for the best explanation for the available data. When the data is inconclusive then you choose the simplest and most likely answer. In this case the data is not inconclusive. We have al-queda claiming responsibility for the attacks. We have flight manifests and airline check-in clerk's testimony proving that the alledged terrorists were on the planes. We also have audio recordings of the hijacker's voices over the intercom, and we have recorded cell phone calls made by flight attendants and passengers describing the terrorists. Despite all of this clear evidence, we also have the warning signs like the 94 WTC bombing and bombing of the USS Cole all carried out by Al-Queda operatives. We also have the student listings showing the terrorists names for the flight schools that they attended. How can you dismiss all of this evidence and take your flimsy, weak arguements as the truth?



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTerminator
Where are these changing stories? And when did Bush say that he saw the first plane hit before he went into the classroom? That is impossible because he had been in the classroom for a long time before the first plane hit.


no comment





QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   

The insurance pay out for the Trade complex just a few months after the owner bought the whole complex was seen as a smoking gun.


Or just a coincedence...

Perhaps.


Another point is that the administrations and departments changing of stories so frequently as to what they knew before. The Presidents claim of seeing the FIRST plane hit before he went into the classroom. Still not questioned by Fix News or CNN.


Where are these changing stories? And when did Bush say that he saw the first plane hit before he went into the classroom? That is impossible because he had been in the classroom for a long time before the first plane hit.

I believe he told a kid called Jordan in a televised Press Conference. He made a reference to being a pilot himself and said something along the lines when I saw the first plane I thought to myself Now there's a bad pilot. He was in the classroom when the SECOND plane hit, when his Press Secretary came in and told America was under attack. What I mean by the changing stories is NORAD and the FAA for example saying they didn't scramble jets then yes they did. There was a direct breach of protocol that day and only a very few people can make that happen. Interestingly that Dick Cheney was in charge of NORAD a task no other President or Vice President has taken


There were stand-down orders on 9/11. The US Air force did not intervene.


When they discovered what was going on the most certainly did intervene. They scrambled a few fighters after the trade centers were hit but there were miscommunications and the fighters headed toward new york instead of washington, I believe.

Must of been some serious miscommunications as jets were scrambled from Langley to intercept the Plane heading towards the Pentagon. Not Andrews Air Force Base 10 miles away. I'm not from the US but even I know which is closer. How do you mean when they discovered what was going on? Almost simultaneously 4 jets go off course and lose contact yet only one was taken down. I'm sorry something feels wrong to me. I can't believe in all that incompetence happened at the same time.

Yet nothing seems odd to you? Strange. Oh well each to their own opinion I suppose


Meanwhile, the history of Al Qaeda and the CIA has been shoved to the background. The fact that successive US governments since the Soviet-Afghan war have supported and abetted the Islamic terror network is no longer mentioned, for obvious reasons. It would break the consensus regarding Al Qaeda as the outside enemy of America, which is a crucial building block of the entire National Security doctrine.


That is false. Yes, the US did supply the afghan resistence during the war against the soviets. Once Bin Laden started Al-Queda we disconnected all ties with him and in the 1990's tried to assasinate him.

Yes Bill Clinton really went after him. In fact had 3 seperate offers to help arrest him yet he refused. He even bombed Sudans only pharmacuetical plant when they offered.


This central proposition that Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11 serves to justify everything else including the Patriot Act, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, the spiraling defense and homeland security budgets, the detention of thousands of people of Muslim faith on trumped up charges, the arrest and deportation to Guantanamo of alleged "enemy combatants"


Or you could say that the Patriot Act was a result of the 9/11 attacks in which we try to prevent ourselves from another 9/11. That is a perfectly good and obvious answer. And what's with the terrorists at Guantanamo bay? Whats the trouble there?

No the Patriot Act is another totalartarian tiptoe to what is, an ever increasing step towards a dictatorship.




I don't want to argue with you on this just present you with why the official story isn't believed by all. I'm not saying Al Qeada didn't have invovlement but I believe they weren't the only ones.

A question for you. Do you believe that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were connected to the attacks?

[edit on 24-8-2005 by MrDog]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTerminator
1. Fine dust is the exact opposite of what would be created if there was a large explosion at all.


Exactly what evidence leads you to this conclusion?

Look at the squibs. There is dust of the same color as the powdered concrete shooting out of the buildings with the squib explosions, and well before the collapsing regions had arrived. Air do that?


2. You don't know much about physics do you? A collapse of a building that big would create tremendous force, enough to grind all of the concrete to fine powder.


Again - evidence?

Maybe you should download SAP2000, prove there is enough energy to do this during any such collapse, and then take your simulation to the Progressive Challenge Thread and show us how you did it. I have a hunch that it would've taken way more energy to so thoroughly destroy the concrete slabs than the collapses should've put out, driven only by gravity.


Besides, how does the amount of fine powder support your conspiracy theory?




What do you think is coming out of that building? Just air?

No, it's solid debris, and that's why you can see it. Well, solid debris lingering in the air as dust. The exact same kind as the concrete dust that we know came from those buildings during the collapses. And obviously, the collapse hadn't reached that part of the building yet.

So what you see there is an explosion, obviously separate from the collapse, causing what we can easily assume to be a big assed load of pulverized concrete. It's a big assed pulverized load of something, anyway, and fits the characteristics of the rest of the pulverized concrete we saw that day.

Since there is no other logical explanation than to assume that there was indeed some sort of explosion that caused that squib (unless one of you guys would like to attempt to bring forth a better theory as to what is causing this debris to blow out so far and so forcefully :@@
, you have direct evidence here as to what happened to the concrete that turned it all to dust.

That is to say, not a theory or idea as to how the concrete became dust, but direct video evidence of how the concrete was turned to dust. And it was before the collapsing region had arrived.

This is what suggests to me, especially along with the insane amount of total powder that would fall all over NYC, that something is foul.

I'm sure that from your point of view, it's very easy to convince yourself that something like this would be normal. So, again, go ahead and try to find some evidence or some way to reproduce the effect, and post it for us to try for ourselves.


There are no squibs!! The only "evidence" of squibs I have seen is a little smudge coming out horizontally from the tower. If you watch the closer up video it is quite clear that the cause of collapse was the crumbling of the outer collumns and the flexing of the steel bars within the building, not explosions.


What??

Those little "smudges" coming out of the tower horizontally, you say, are crumbling perimeter columns? Shooting out and drifting in the air as dust - well over a hundred feet out into the air?? WTF! How in the hell does something crumble and fall over a hundred feet out?? And why the hell would it??

I knew you guys would be stretching when you finally tried to explain the squibs - but goddamn! I'm at a loss of words.



Also, even if it was an explosion then why not say it was the result of the extreme heat reaching a pocket of fuel from the airplane?


Sure, why not? It's simple and conveniently fits your theory.

Seriously, you wouldn't say that because such an explosion from ignited fuel would involve flames - and the squibs did not. Neither would such an explosion pulverize concrete into dust and shoot it way out laterally into the sky.


The gravity theory IS the most logical answer. It is supported by professional engineers and the evidence for "squibs" is dubious at best.


Dubious at best as in recorded on video time and again by major media corporations on 9/11?

You're leaving out critical evidence - and at the same time saying your conclusion is best.



Prove me wrong if you can.


Ah, behold the inexpense of words.

I'm right. Prove me wrong if you can. See? Works both ways. Words are cheap like that.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Must of been some serious miscommunications as jets were scrambled from Langley to intercept the Plane heading towards the Pentagon. Not Andrews Air Force Base 10 miles away. I'm not from the US but even I know which is closer. How do you mean when they discovered what was going on? Almost simultaneously 4 jets go off course and lose contact yet only one was taken down. I'm sorry something feels wrong to me. I can't believe in all that incompetence happened at the same time.


You are mistaken. No, not simultaneously did four planes suddenly go off course. They each went off course at different times in atleast 10-20 minute intervals. The FAA didn't know what to do because even though they had plans for this type of thing the magnitude of the terrorist operation and the purpose the planes would serve was unheard of, and therefore unbelievable. It was too late by the time they scrambled fighers for New York, and the miscommunication I speak of is that the jets in washington went out to sea rather than staying the the vicinity of capitol Hill or the Pentagon.


Yes Bill Clinton really went after him. In fact had 3 seperate offers to help arrest him yet he refused. He even bombed Sudans only pharmacuetical plant when they offered.


You aren't entirely correct. Yes, there were many chances to catch/kill Bin Laden and Clinton put a dead or alive offer on him. But the openings in which they could have caught him did have complications; such as kids roaming around Bin Laden's camp and Bin Laden staying with another country's royal family. If we were to strike on either of those occasions there would be political upheavels. Personally, I think we should have grown the balls to kill him right then and there no matter who he was with, they would just have been collateral damage. However, the intelligence agencies have no way of knowing that 9/11 would occur at those times.


No the Patriot Act is another totalartarian tiptoe to what is, an ever increasing step towards a dictatorship.


That's just an opinion. You just don't have any trust our contries officials. You seem to think that many of our country's political leaders and military officers (some of the most honourable men in the world) are sick enough to throw the entire united states dream into the garbage and seek a form of opressing government which we have fought so long against? I think that's ridiculous.

The patriot act simply gives law enforcement more power, power that they should have now that we know what terrorism is capable of. If you aren't a criminal then you are virtually unaffected by the Patriot Act.


A question for you. Do you believe that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were connected to the attacks?


No, but I do believe that Iraq has harbored terror and rogue states before, as it has.


Exactly what evidence leads you to this conclusion?


Common Sense. During an explosion large peices of material are more likely to be projected further then an internal collapse.


Look at the squibs. There is dust of the same color as the powdered concrete shooting out of the buildings with the squib explosions, and well before the collapsing regions had arrived. Air do that?


If that fussy picture is all you have for your squib theory then I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. I'm sure that whatever video footage that came from if you were to watch the rest of the frames it would have much more sense. If you can find video footage of that happening abruptly from the side of the building I might take it into consideration. But also I you think that your squibs hold more water then the commonly accepted theory among scientists then you try to prove ours wrong.


Again - evidence?

Maybe you should download SAP2000, prove there is enough energy to do this during any such collapse, and then take your simulation to the Progressive Challenge Thread and show us how you did it. I have a hunch that it would've taken way more energy to so thoroughly destroy the concrete slabs than the collapses should've put out, driven only by gravity.


You are not making any sense. There is nothing to argue about when it comes to the fine powder, NOTHING. You can see by watching any video footage that more and more dust is created as the tremendous force of the tower falses to the ground (even after your so-called squibs).


That is to say, not a theory or idea as to how the concrete became dust, but direct video evidence of how the concrete was turned to dust. And it was before the collapsing region had arrived.


You cannot base a theory off of a blury video frame. If the squibs actually existed then there should be video evidence from closer to the tower showing the concrete being pulverized out the side of the building. Is there?


Those little "smudges" coming out of the tower horizontally, you say, are crumbling perimeter columns? Shooting out and drifting in the air as dust - well over a hundred feet out into the air?? WTF! How in the hell does something crumble and fall over a hundred feet out?? And why the hell would it??

I knew you guys would be stretching when you finally tried to explain the squibs - but darn! I'm at a loss of words.


No, no no. You misunderstood me. Try learning some reading skills before you laugh yourself to death. What I said was that one video frame is not enough to establish a theory. I also said that it was clear upon closer inspection of video footage shot from directly beneath the tower that the outer columns crumbled which in turn caused the building to collapse becuase the hot temperatures caused the iron support beams to flex rendering them unstable if the outer column supports were to fail.


Sure, why not? It's simple and conveniently fits your theory.

Seriously, you wouldn't say that because such an explosion from ignited fuel would involve flames - and the squibs did not. Neither would such an explosion pulverize concrete into dust and shoot it way out laterally into the sky.


OK...once again that one video frame isn't enough to convince anyone but yourself of the squib idea. Also, wouldn't the squibs have already gone off if they were on the levels were the crash was?


Dubious at best as in recorded on video time and again by major media corporations on 9/11?

You're leaving out critical evidence - and at the same time saying your conclusion is best.


Well if you are so certain that they were recorded time and time again on video why don't your present them instead of that same sketchy video frame?


Ah, behold the inexpense of words.

I'm right. Prove me wrong if you can. See? Works both ways. Words are cheap like that.


Your sly tactics don't work on me. You are dancing around my demands. The whole idea here is to come up with a hypothesis and support it with evidence. If you can't do that then it is only a blind belief and most certainly not more rational (much less actually) then the commonly held theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

I never said that I was absolutely right. I simply presented my knowledge on the subject, and asked that if you could prove that I was mislead or misinformed aka wrong then do it.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
If you really can't find the video's of the two towers collapsing then what the hell are you doing on this forum ? You sure aren't looking for the truth.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Not everyone has all day to trawl the internet, some of us work, go to school/college, spend time with friends and partners, sleep, eat, go out, fish, go shooting, bike riding, running, jogging, walking, go to the movies, walk on the beach, shop, party, etc, etc.
It's not that easy to find stuff sometimes that's good enough quality to watch.
And all the stuff that I saw from a 'conpiracy' site that you or bsBray I think posted seemed to show that the demo theory was crap anyway.

You didn't respond very well I must say, sometimes silence is better than trying to have the last word (Yes I know I should pay attention to my own advice sometimes
).

[edit on 25-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



new topics




 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join