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.

 

How can seemingly intelligent people dismiss the eyewitness accounts of hearing explosives?

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
I just don't see it that way.

Isn't that using an incredibly broad definition, white, and one which would not apply to the law at all?

I'd be interested to hear about the first "terrorism" charge levied upon a jaywalker.



That's their definition of a terrorist in Patriot Act I. I know that people have been denied trials and lawyers for the reason of being suspected of terrorism.

I'm just telling you the definition and what that definition would entail. If a law is broken and a human life is endangered in anyway, the person that broke that law could be considered a terrorist.




posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
White4life posts this response to Faust,


Originally posted by white4life420

Originally posted by Faust
Point being that you conspiracy wackos are always WRONG in the end.


Correct. Anyone who believed Hitler had bad intentions when stripping away German's freedoms to provide security from the communist's was a wacko. History certainly shows that.


to which Faust responds thus:


Originally posted by Faust
I'm not saying that you're comparing Bush to Hitler. Or maybe you are, i don't know. Then again, Kanye West, who is known for his superior intellect about politics and expertise on who is and isn't a racist even without meeting them did say Bush didn't like black people AND neither did Hitler....hmmm. My GOD, it's all obvious now.

Anyway, i'll try and steer straight here. Involving our freedoms, you're refering to the Patriot Act, correct? It's been just under 5 years since it was implemented. What freedoms have you lost since then?


I would just like to point out that I think you've grossly missed the point.

Hitler's actions were conspiratorial. The Reichstag Fire, for example, was a conspiracy comparable to 9/11. Are we 'wackos' for believing widely-accepted history? What about the failed plot to kill Hitler? That was a conspiracy, too, coming from Hitler's opposition within his own government. Are we 'wackos' wrong in believing this conspiracy, just as every historian does, despite the massive amount of evidence for it and its wide acceptance today? Or what about the Burning of Rome, or Iran Contra, or Watergate or Teapot Dome or Waco?

The point is, your statement that conspiracy 'wackos' are always wrong is grossly mistaken.

Btw - not trying to get off topic, and I'm no JFK expert, there is concrete evidence of more than 3 shots being fired during JFK's assassination, which invalidates the whole conclusion of that documentary.

Edited to stay more on-topic.

[edit on 23-9-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Actually, there isn't concrete evidence proving there to be 4 shots fired. However, there is concrete evidence that the third shot fired is actually an echo of the second shot that was recorded. Thus making it only 3 shots which makes it very possible for Oswald to pull off. And no, i'm not providing "links" to prove it. Find it yourself.

Back to Whites details involving the Patriot Act. I am not going to flame him for this because he isn't saying that we will all lose our rights. He's recognizing the possibilities of the Patriot Act in which COULD lead to this. At this point in time though i believe the Patriot Act is sound. It has prevented further terrorism. At the same time it has prevented these same people from getting your average "FAIR" trial. But screw them, they WANT to kill us. I have no sympathy for them. As far as effecting those non-terrorist crimes; smoking drugs,..etc., it's still breaking the law. You'll get a fair trial. The only difference is you'll be caught in a different manner. As Jim Carreys character in Liar! Liar! said, "Quit breaking the law A**HOLE!"

I'm flexable on debating the Patriot Act. Currently it's a good thing, IF left unchanged from its current position. If the next terrorist act is in the form of a nuke in Washington D.C., look for it to evolve to something more ugly. BUT that's IF.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Actually, the JFK Conspiracies is pretty much what this topic is about. It was one of the first situations where hundreds of witnesses were present, film was shot & general confusion arose. The documentary, which was aired maybe a year or so ago, finally puts almost all of the points that the conspiracy theorists hold so dear about that whole case. With known & provable FACTS (a word that many here need to learn), just left out in most reports & books, things were explained very easily. Conveniently left out of most books to allow a whole separate mini economy to bloom around the JFK Assassination.

One of the many were the Magic Bullet Theory. This is a theory that has been mocked by conspiracies & politicians alike to supposedly prove the government was involved in a massive cover-up. The missing piece to the puzzle was a last minute alteration of one of the seats in the Limo that changed the trajectory the perfect amount to explain all the wounds.

A second one was the policeman in the motorcade who incorrectly reported his location at the time over the radio (but luckily left his channel “opened”). He was in fact at a location a block or 2 away, which also threw off a mess of things.

A third was a picture, held up as proof but 2nd gunmen theorists. Using simple measurements & proportions from the surrounding area proved that the shadowy man in the snap shop would have needed to be over 12 ft tall, or some such nonsense.

The JFK Event is an event that showed believers & skeptics alike how the mind and ones eyes can meld together and allow you to believe anything, especially if you are pre disposed to it. It also showed us how sound waves can be greatly effected by terrain to the point that even trained observers can be taken off guard or have their judgment impaired.

Touching on the Patriot Act, which has little to do with this thread, in my opinion… there is always a portion of people who do not like any new law to be passed. I find myself in this boat, because a law can always be used in a manner in which it was not intended. I fly on a regular basis and have had a few minor run ins with TSA & such. I have absolutely nothing to hide, so the matters are taken care of with no problems.

I do feel safer in the air, but I wish some rules were made even tighter. They relaxed laws just this spring that I feel were not needed or not very smart. You can now carry on the same knives used to hijack planes in the past. Not real smart…



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faust
Actually, there isn't concrete evidence proving there to be 4 shots fired. However, there is concrete evidence that the third shot fired is actually an echo of the second shot that was recorded. Thus making it only 3 shots which makes it very possible for Oswald to pull off. And no, i'm not providing "links" to prove it. Find it yourself.


Actually, there were more than four. There is concrete evidence of this.


Shot 1: Widely accepted to have hit the pavement and missed completely. Odd that Oswald's first shot should be so insanely off for a sniper, but nonetheless, here's one shot.

Shot 2: Grazes bystander James Tague. He suffers a phsyical injury as proof of this shot.

Shot 3: Strikes a manhole cover and lands in the grass, where police guard it, but an unidentified man picks it up and carries it away with him. Though the incident was reported and recorded in newspaper accounts, the government quickly denies this ever took place.

Shot 4: Strikes Kennedy in the back. According to surgeons after the autopsy, it did not enter deeply.

Shot 5: Hit Kennedy in the throat from the front. For shots 4 and 5 to have been by the same bullet, Oswald would have had to have been standing on the ground. Otherwise the projectory is impossible for one bullet.

Shot 6: Strikes the windshield of the limo, though this may have been a result of Shot 7. Witnesses have claimed a clean hole through the windshield, though, that you could stick a pencil through.

Shot 7: Strikes the chrome trim of the windshield, causing damage. It has been argued that a fragment did this, but 60 grams of "fragments" of this shot were recovered.

Shot 8: Puts an obvious bullet hole in a nearby freeway sign, necessarily originating from the area of the Grassy Knoll.

Shot 9: Strikes Conelly. For those that believe a single shot, that had already been through Kennedy, changed directions yet again to cause this, I'm only glad that the government has not similarly tried to convince you that defocating in your food is good for you.





Shot 10: Hits Kennedy in the brain. Former US Marines Sniper Craig Roberts sates "There was no question about it; John F. Kennedy had been shot from the right front. How in the world could anyone look at that film and say that the fatal head strike had come from the rear? The so-called experts . . . had obviously never served in combat, where witnessing high-velocity bullet strikes was commonplace."

More on veteran sniper Robert's expert opinion:


“The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was because I could not have done it,” said former US Marine sniper, Craig Roberts. Credited with numerous kills while serving in Vietnam , Roberts turned an objective eye on the shot heard ‘round the world. After he visited Dealey Plaza, after viewing the so-called “sniper’s lair,” on the sixth floor of the book depository, and after staring at the large oak tree overspreading much of Elm Street, Roberts said, “I walked away from the window in disgust. I had seen all I needed to know that Oswald could not have been the lone shooter.”


www.strike-the-root.com...


Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
Actually, the JFK Conspiracies is pretty much what this topic is about.


I think what you mean is that it's relevant to our discussion. Trivial, I know, but I just felt like mentioned it. That, and your mention of "known & provable FACTS" is quite ironic, considering the vast amount of objective science you so frequently cite in your posts.


[edit on 24-9-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Howdy folks...

bsbray...

I can agree with just about everything you said with the exception of this...


Shot 4: Strikes Kennedy in the back. According to surgeons after the autopsy, it did not enter deeply.

Shot 5: Hit Kennedy in the throat from the front. For shots 4 and 5 to have been by the same bullet, Oswald would have had to have been standing on the ground. Otherwise the projectory is impossible for one bullet.


It is my opinion that the throat shot was from the left of Kennedy, entered the throat and exited the back...

As far as the SBT, I don't buy it IMHO there were 3 shooters, on in back, one to the right, and one to the left...

BTW here are some good photos and videos of that day, if you don't already have the link...

jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com...



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   
That may very well be the case. I'm not much on JFK's assassination, anyway. I've seen a documentary or two, of which I remember very little detail, and that's about the extent of my knowledge on this subject.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
BSBray has unwittingly proven my point… the diagram she is using is WRONG. That is a very popular diagram, used in many books & posted on many websites. It is a FACT that the front seat of the limo was removed earlier that day. Even the Zepruder film shows that Gov, Connelly was seated below the level of the President. Yet, to this day, that diagram, showing them more or less equal, is the one that is used to explain the bullets. I don’t have a theory as to how many shooters, where they where or why they did any shooting, I just know a major fact has been left out of the equation. Just as the other “points” in the conspiracies, most are flawed from conception. You can expect nothing but flawed answers when you use flawed “facts”.

Personally, I have little interest in the JFK matter anyway. But as usual, you missed the point. The point is how different people interrupt the same event in different ways. Whether it is due to a political ideology, basic ignorance in how to process said information or variations in terrain & location to the event… there is a reason for 10 witnesses to have 4 different versions/descriptions of the same event. Deal with it.

As for the semantics game you want to play, it is no more trivial then your comments. Once again, you prove that you will refuse to hear provable facts when they are presented and continue to stand by flawed concepts & fuzzy facts. Pick apart grammar, pick apart spelling, whatever floats your boat… it all is done just so you do not need to face the true points. If you conceded to many facts, you would soon understand how stubborn you have been grasping to out dated reports, quasi experts & flawed eyewitness accounts, not to mention your limited understanding of physics. Don’t drag points over here that you have used unsuccessfully in other threads. You continue to be the reason that so many valid concerns about 9-11 are over looked & lumped in with wingnuts. Thank you for ushering in the end of any true discourse in this thread too…


[edit on 24-9-2005 by Jake the Dog Man]

[edit on 24-9-2005 by Jake the Dog Man]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
So because the image shows Kennedy and Connelly level with each other, all the other evidence I just posted is automatically null, and then you proceed to note about how I never use facts and only pick apart words your words, etc., as if you are doing anything different in your own post.


As I said though, I'm not very informed on the JFK issue, so thanks for exposing me to the info that the front seats were removed.


9/11 is a different matter though. Can you say angular momentum? Totally disappeared when those two towers started collapsing. Impossible without a failure in the top floors to stop them from acting as single objects, ie, a shattering of their frames. Can you say lack of retardation? Yes, I know how to make immature jokes too, but the collapses continued at the exact same speed even as the driving mass disintegrated and the collapse descended on too thicker columns. Flawed concepts my ass. I'm among the only people on this part of ATS to actually post facts. The word play you accuse me of makes up the very core of every post I have seen of yours.

Btw, these are not "quasi experts" that disagree with you.

Carlos Hathcock, our most famous US sniper with 93 confirmed kills, and the former senior instructor of the US Marine Corps Sniper Instructor School, located in Quantico, Virginia, says the following:


“Let me tell you what we did at Quantico,” Hathcock recalls. “We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?”


This guy's recount is pretty important, too. He's not just giving his expert opinion. He's recounting trying to recreate the assassination, which is crucial to scientific observation: theories need to be tested for repeatability. This guy is one of the best snipers on the planet, whereas Oswald was nowhere near as experienced, and Hathcock could not, after many attempts, reproduce what Oswald originally did.

If facts are based on science (which they are), and science is based on repeatable tests and experiments for proof (which any elementary school science teacher can inform you), then that's a pretty big blow to your case. I don't know what kind of proof you reference (maybe whatever the government or the Discovery Channel tells you?
), but this stuff is pretty damned objective.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Who said anyone believed the Warren Report? They used flawed facts, just as you are… or at least the sites where you are cutting & pasting from. You again are so un-excepting of basic facts (the seat was removed & the Connelly was considerably lower then Kennedy that you just ramble about snipers & stuff. You don’t even understand the ramifications of that substantial change, so I hardly can expect you to understand the theory. No doubt your sniper couldn’t reproduce the results, he had the WRONG variables to figure in. What don’t you get?

As ALL of your input only serves to take the thread off course & we both admit to not caring much about the JFK thing, just drop the whole thing. You really do like to take over threads and your constant arguing & changing the focus only proves how people view things differently, despite the facts. When your views are shared by any critical thinking scientist, with no agenda, I may give it a 2nd read… till then, there is a site on the web to prove anything. That just doesn’t make it so.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Jake, I'm getting tired of your rambling. You're posting less evidence than I am and criticizing me for not posting any at all.

From now on, you post all the evidence. Provide us with the proof of Oswald killing Kennedy. Provide us with the evidence that 9/11 was perpetrated by Osama Bin Laden.

Your turn now. Have at it.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
From now on, you post all the evidence. Provide us with the proof of Oswald killing Kennedy. Provide us with the evidence that 9/11 was perpetrated by Osama Bin Laden.

I have NEVER stated either, therefore how can I provide proof? You seem to misunderstand most of what anyone with a different opinion says, most certainly means. This is not a personal attach forum, nor do most people intend it to be so, you just seem to want to add that spin. Honestly, I could care less what you believe. My problem is when you try to pass any of it off as fact, when you have none. You support theories that most people would laugh off, not because they are foolish, but because you believe them. That isn’t being said to attack YOU, because you are not the only one. I do stick by the view that your understanding of the laws of physics is lacking in application, but that isn’t attacking you. I also stand by the point that you won't even concede how a situation can not be replicated accurately without all the correct facts.

You continue your rye remarks, rolling eyes icons & simple things. I really don’t care. Your steamroller tactics don’t work here, at least with me.

Someday a Mod may stop by & try to keep you on topic…



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Let me make my request more specific.


Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
If you conceded to many facts,


Please provide examples of the 'facts' that you are referencing here.


you would soon understand how stubborn you have been grasping to out dated reports, quasi experts & flawed eyewitness accounts, not to mention your limited understanding of physics.


Show me specific examples of my limited understanding of physics and use of "outdated reports," and show me how I am wrong or push outdated info.

The expert opinions and eyewitness accounts are subjective.


You really do like to take over threads and your constant arguing & changing the focus only proves how people view things differently, despite the facts.


Please provide examples of these 'facts'.


You repeatedly disregard 10 facts to state your claims as a fact.


Please provide examples of these 'facts'.


you have proven you just don’t require the same evidence (look it up) that I do.


Please show me the evidence that I am ignoring.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   
The fact is that Jake is supported by the science.

It is up to the people advancing conspiracies to offer up proof if the evidence presented is not good enough for them.

Edit: not talking about JFK but 9-11 which this thread is about.

[edit on 25-9-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
The fact is that Jake is supported by the science.


Please show me specifically what science is behind Jake's statements.


It is up to the people advancing conspiracies to offer up proof if the evidence presented is not good enough for them.


Depends on the circumstance. Jake was claiming he had "facts." I'm asking what they are. Pretty simple.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Most people are good-natured. I once tried telling this die hard, so-called Liberal freedom fighter about what a Satanist does with a child's blood and why they can become addicted to adrenaline and he called me a liar, felt sick and walked away. How many people would challenge the notion that there has been at least one case of this type of thing happening? But this individual called me a liar and bolted without actually using logical reasoning.

Most people cannot handle reality because it is often stranger than fiction. For example, I have studied Atlantis for years and years. I find it incredibly fascinating. I enjoy history, as it helps to tell us about who we are and from where we all came! Yet, most people could only care about what's on Football or South Park. These people read a partly fictional novel like The Da Vinci Code and talk about that but would pass over and not read anything of real research of Edgar Cayce or that of Manly P. Hall. No, they'd rather read truth mixed in with obvious fiction and come to the conclusion that we’ll never know anything more than that anyhow. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with reading Da Vinci Code but don't expect to have a much clearer understanding of truth after reading it.


How can seemingly intelligent people dismiss the eyewitness accounts of hearing explosives?


I remember watching those towers come down. They fell so perfectly and at the speed of gravity. At first, I just bought the official story like many people.

But later, I went back and decided to watch it over and over and over again in slow/fast motion. I also have a tape on building demolitions and compared the two videos of 9-11 and the demolitions. Now had the floors been piling into each, top floor onto the bottom floor (as per the official story), I would have expected to see the fall be much slower to account for the delay in each floor collapsing. Also, I watched Larry say on Fox News - I believe, how "we decided to pull it" and watched building 7 go down. That was more than enough for me to at least acknowledge that we do indeed HAVE A HUGE CONSPIRACY.

Not only were many of the people witness’ but also the rescue workers themselves said they heard explosives detonating. This delay in time corresponds to the timing that floors were not falling onto each other at all but rather blown apart.

So, why did they ship the rubble out of the US? I would like to have heard what the private investigators had to say from an examination of the rubble - But I guess we'll never know? Or do we?




[edit on 25-9-2005 by realrepublican]



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Ok, how hard is this to understand? WHY is it AUTOMATICALLY an explosive if you have an explosion in the WTC? Because everyone is desperate to believe that they were brought down? You don't have to have an explosive to have an explosion! It's that simple. There were PLENTY of things in the WTC that would cause explosions that had NOTHING to do with explosives.

You want to know the real reason that intelligent people can ignore eyewitness accounts of explosives? Because we don't know that they WERE explosives. There were MILES of natural gas pipes in the buildings. There were HUNDREDS of transformers in the buildings. There were pockets of jet fuel that created vapor clouds. ALL OF THESE THINGS CAN EXPLODE. And yet NONE OF THEM are explosives.

Yes I know, you're going to trot out the quotes of hearing "what sounded like a bomb" and "there was another explosion". Note the key words in those statements. "What SOUNDED LIKE a bomb." An explosion sounds remarkably like a bomb, but again, DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A BOMB. There is no concrete evidence of explosives in EITHER WTC building. There is evidence of what people THINK were explosives, but nothing that can be proven to be, without a doubt.

THAT is why intelligent people can dismiss the eyewitness accounts of hearing explosives at the WTC. Because you DON'T NEED EXPLOSIVES to create an explosion.

[edit on 9/25/2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

There were MILES of natural gas pipes in the buildings.


Sorry folks, I know this is off topic, but I just wanted to comment on this statement...

Just to ask what happens to one of these lines when they are ruptured and then exposed to an open flame ?

Instant torch...

Which could also add to the heat needed to cause the beams to weaken...

That's all I've got to say here carry on...



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   

There is evidence of what people THINK were explosives, but nothing that can be proven to be, without a doubt.


Can you tell me how something that makes several "boom, boom, booms" and brings down a building so perfectly, could be anything other than explosives placed correctly to render the law of gravity to work so well? Kinda makes one wonder if those pipes, transformers, capacitors, tesla coils, death rays or whoopee cochins, were placed correctly next to every support column or not?


[edit on 25-9-2005 by realrepublican]



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
What do you THINK they're going to do as floors are collapsing onto them? Or as the fire is burning through them? You're dropping several hundred TONS of steel, do you really think that these things are NOT going to explode as this is happening?




top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join