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.

 

Science is great, but what about the non-scientific smoking guns on 9/11?

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I am stating that the NWO as you call it is in action, but will not last more than a few more generations at the rate the US and the world are progressing. In time, old money will mean nothing. There is no middle class anymore, and has not been for years. You are on welfare, live paycheck to paycheck, or you are filthy rich That is about it.




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
esdad, every time you mention something it's hard for me to state my opinion because I can not debunk you, I cant do anithing because you do not give a source for research, you do not give links, articles,etc.
90% of your post does not contain any articles, links, pictures, etc.
It's just like me saying "I know an island with people that live inside of a volcano in to the lava"
But no one is going to take me serios because I dont present anithing but my words.
If you want to act as propaganda u'r not doing a greate job.
You just dissmis everything with "what if he felt and triped" with out anithing to back it up.
When something captures my atention and I want to talk to some one I show him the news paper.

And about this


Hey, truthseeka, I am still waiting on that evidence that explosives were involved in the WTC. Since you are so adamant that your view is correct, and since you started the thread, it is time for you to PROVE it or move on.

how do you explain aluminium powder and concrete powder covering the whole area?
We all know this can only be obtained by high explosives.
Remember at the time of impact of the planes it wasent present.
Only when the colapse got under way the powder coverd the area like snow.
This indicates high explosives, fire can not create that.
Experiment put a concrete brick on fire and live it there see what hapens.
I dont think it will turn in to powder, also the presence of powder coming from metals is and indication of high explosives.
Remeber the amount of it, the whole area was coverd in it.


[edit on 24-3-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
everytime I post it is not speculative. You wouldn't follow the link if I gave it anyways, so why even post what you did?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
everytime I post it is not speculative. You wouldn't follow the link if I gave it anyways, so why even post what you did?

Of course I did, I put up pictures and I gave a credible source.

Let's start with post by post.
let's start for example with osamma.

1 evidence for osama being sick.
2 evidence for him wearing a ring (pictures).
3 evidence of osama writing with other hand.
You got any article on that?so we can desmiss them all?
I would be happy to dissmiss them all but I cant see how.
So i'm going to think that the film with bin laden is fake.

So got any evidence that indicates it's real besides u'r word?

next....
You still didint answer me how did the FBI come to the conclusion that those were the high jackers.

You said you debunked it all, I dont see how since you didint bring anithing clear up.



[edit on 24-3-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
How can you be a member of ATS and not have a clue on these questions? Do some searches on the NWO and I'm sure you'll come across all kinds of relevant info, on everything from the Triliateral Commission, to the US military industrial complex, to the international banking families that own or have stakes or connections to most everything on the planet that've been built up over a few hundred years by now.

Everything I ask is for a reason. lol, you think I don't know what truth is going to say? I just want to hear him say it. I was also hoping (but not expecting) him to at least provide some links or something to make his argument more credible.

Truth...

I brought up bldg 7 because it shows how much of a GD LIE it is that the planes brought down the towers. If you insist on believing otherwise, fine, but don't be surprised when people bring this up again when replying to you in these threads.

Words mean nothing. Why should I believe you if you have provided no credible evidence to back anything up?
"but TJW, Charlie Sheen said this and that and blah blah blah"
does it look like I care what anyone said? I can say the moon is green. Does that make the moon green?


Honestly, I don't know where to start on that one. I know the Rothschilds and the Saxe Koburg Gothas will go RIGHT over your head, so I'll just start with the super wealthy. You ARE aware that there are super wealthy people in the world, right? If you can't grasp that one...I dunno what to tell ya.

Rothschilds
Why didn't you just say
Windsors?

Yep, I know there are super wealthy people. Who said there weren't?


Start from there, and then work your way up to the Bildeberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and so on. But, you probably won't do this, but you can't say I didn't post evidence of elites


www.bilderberg.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...
www.trilateral.org...
www....-------------------------/library/conspiracy/trilateral-commission/

www.cfr.org...
www.conspiracyarchive.com...
www.4rie.com...



The Global Elite: Who are they?

Ok, I thought you were going to go into a little more depth and maybe name some other names, but you pretty much answered the 'who' as I expected you to. Great
now let's look at the other questions...


Where did they come from? The common ancestor of Homo sapiens like all of us, of course. (though they do make you wonder sometimes)

lol
I begging you, believe ANY conspiricy you want....just as long as it's not the reptilian theories! Please!


The purpose of 9/11? Pretty deep one, there, but you can start with PNAC and Zbigniew Brzezenski; they called for a helpful Pearl Harbor-like event to get the American people behind a war in the Middle East. If you haven't heard of Brzezenski, I'm not surprised, but if you haven't heard of PNAC...look into it.

1. Please provide any evidence that Brzezinski suggested something like that post cold war. He was more interested in destroying the USSR than anything. He was against the first gulf war and he's been a critic of the WOT.

2. Please provide any evidence the PNAC suggested something like that? The American people didn't need help getting behind a war in the Middle East. There was plenty of stuff to justify a war. Saddam was still there, Beruit, the embassy bombings, the USS cole, etc.

3. That's still not telling me the purpose. You go through all those years of cover ups and plannings. You carry out that spectacular attack. All for what? To go to war with Iraq which we were likely to do anyway?



(I would also like to know, what's up with all the other terror attacks. And what's with some of them being foiled and some of them being carried out? And how are they able to keep getting people to do it, knowing good and well they won't see any benefit and their countries and/or countrymen will likely suffer. These people have no dignity?)


Only 1 9/11?



The only truth to that statement is that 9/11 was the only time in HISTORY that a steel building (3 actually ) collapsed due to fire. I suggest you look into history for examples of govts attacking themselves and blaming enemies. I and others have posted examples of these, but, alas, you must have missed that too. Don't worry, I'll list a couple of examples right here...

Hitler burned the Reichstag to blame it on his enemies.
The Romans burned Rome to blame it on their enemies.

1. Again, I'd like to see any evidence that a plane that size crashing and exploding into a building the size, shape, and structure of the WTC can't bring the building down.

2. Ok, so you say there were many 9/11s. Spanning a couple thousand years. Yet....here we still are.

What is their purpose?
What are they waiting for?


The time of their next move? I dunno, I don't have a crystal ball, but judging by the fact that they keep telling us there WILL be another terror attack, they're working on it.

And why do they keep telling us about their plans if it's all supposed to be a secret?


The US govt had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor, but allowed it to happen to get the public behind war.

Now this, I will just flat out say you're wrong.
I could go into A LOT of detail here. I'll just say I've had opportunity to do research on this that most people don't have.
We did know something was up. We knew they were likely to attack. However 1) we didn't allow it and 2) we certainly didn't allow it just to get the public behind the war

The 'we' here = an extremely small number of people. Intelligence gathering back then was...well let's just say it was pretty bad. So was communicating any intelligence gathered.
Like I said before I can go into a lot of detail, but that would be OT. Plus this is ATS (you won't know what that means but it's an important fact).



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   
well, that's all well and good, thatjustwierd, but....

tower seven. symmetry. timing. period.

anything else is just a distraction.

'tower seven' will be the rallying cry of the revolution. well, probably the rallying really loud whisper for now, lol.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
What are you talking about?

So, YOU have a crystal ball?
You just know everything that I'm going to say, eh? Well, what's the next 2 words I am going to type...baby food.
I bet you knew that, though, right?


First, why would you ask "who are the elites," then post links to some of them? Like I said, you were baiting me, but in a stupid way IMO. And, where did I say anything about Charlie Sheen in this thread? Him saying something is not a smoking gun per se, but it sure is great!

Alex Jones did a HUGE thing by interviewing Sheen, and Sheen coming out and saying his thoughts was even bigger. In fact, it's so big, the mainstream media eventually had to talk about it. CNN covered the Sheen interview, and they even talked to Alex, who started dropping hammers on the official story on national TV. It was great! But, of course, they brought some "objective" people on to talk about the outlandish conspiracy theories. I didn't catch that, but I am looking for the rebuttal.

Anyway, enough of that.

What do you mean no credible evidence? I watched, on NATIONAL TV, bldg 7 fall with NO PLANE HITTING IT!



Are you high? Is that not enough evidence that bldg 7 fell with no plane impact? For one, bldg 7 brings the ENTIRE official story into question, and 2, NIST says that the twins did NOT fall due to the airplane impacts. I even posted NIST saying it, but I guess that's not credible evidence that the planes did not cause the collapse.


As for reptilians, please. I was referring to their questionable human nature. These people are brutal psychopaths who see the average Joe as nothing. They don't act like normal human beings sometimes. THIS is what I meant, not some David Icke theory.


So, you know about Brzezenski, but you don't know about him calling for a helpful terror attack against the US. Yawn. I guess you don't know what The Grand Chessboard is. Ok, let's see some quotes from it...

From The Grand Chessboard, by Zbigniew Brzezenski

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)

"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

But, I'm sure you knew I was going to post that.
BTW, this book was published in 1997.


As for Pearl Harbor, the "bootleg intelligence" that you refer to knew the Japanese were going to attack 6-12 months before they did, depending on who you ask. But, I guess the public didn't get behind the war after the attack...



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
What are you talking about?

So, YOU have a crystal ball?
You just know everything that I'm going to say, eh? Well, what's the next 2 words I am going to type...baby food.
I bet you knew that, though, right?

Nope. You're just very predictable.
The whole 'the planes were fake-missiles were used-magical bombs were placed in the building' crowd is predictable.


First, why would you ask "who are the elites," then post links to some of them? Like I said, you were baiting me, but in a stupid way IMO.

No, I was hoping you'd talk about why they caused 9/11.
I posted the links because you suggested I didn't know them.


And, where did I say anything about Charlie Sheen in this thread? Him saying something is not a smoking gun per se, but it sure is great!

How is it great?
What's the difference between him and some redneck in Arkansas or some 5 year old in Quebec?


What do you mean no credible evidence? I watched, on NATIONAL TV, bldg 7 fall with NO PLANE HITTING IT!

man....
You're going to make me find all the stuff I wrote on building 7 aren't you...


Are you high? Is that not enough evidence that bldg 7 fell with no plane impact?

Evidence of what?
You (as well as everyone else) only saw the north side of the building. The side that was facing away from the collapse. You have no idea how damaged the south side was.
Do you honestly think building 7 escaped unscathed with two of some of the largest buildings in the world collapsing right next to it?


There aren't many pictures that show the south side because no one was able to get over there. But we know it was (mess)ed up.
SW corner

We also know there were numourous fires in the building, especially on the lower levels.

I can ask the same questions here...
1. I'm assuming you think bombs were planted so, when were these bombs placed in the building?
2. How did these bombs survived all the damge and fires?
3. The building was going to be condemned if it hasn't fell, and there were again numourous fires so....why the bombs?


NIST says that the twins did NOT fall due to the airplane impacts. I even posted NIST saying it, but I guess that's not credible evidence that the planes did not cause the collapse.

wtf
Why do you keep saying this?
Are you blind?
When did I ever say the planes alone caused the collapse? Please show me where I said this.



As for reptilians, please. I was referring to their questionable human nature. These people are brutal psychopaths who see the average Joe as nothing. They don't act like normal human beings sometimes. THIS is what I meant, not some David Icke theory.

whew.
So there's hope for you yet



"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)

"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

But, I'm sure you knew I was going to post that.
BTW, this book was published in 1997.


So....show me the part where he calls for a terrorist attack....

He says Americans are usually only united after such an event. But I don't see where he calls for one.
And if he did....then....what? What does that prove?


As for Pearl Harbor, the "bootleg intelligence" that you refer to knew the Japanese were going to attack 6-12 months before they did, depending on who you ask. But, I guess the public didn't get behind the war after the attack...

They screwed up the 'where' more than the 'when'
And where did I say the public didn't get behind the war?

I said the US didn't allow the attack to happen just so the public can get behind the war.
When has the public ever been needed anyway? Look at Vietnam....Korea....the War in Iraq...
You think politicians give a (crap) what you think?



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

And, where did I say anything about Charlie Sheen in this thread? Him saying something is not a smoking gun per se, but it sure is great!

How is it great?


Because CNN covered it.


You (as well as everyone else) only saw the north side of the building. The side that was facing away from the collapse. You have no idea how damaged the south side was.
Do you honestly think building 7 escaped unscathed with two of some of the largest buildings in the world collapsing right next to it?


But here's the problem:

It fell symmetrically. It fell very rapidly (roof to ground). And it fell straight down upon its footprint, with the outer walls falling inwards. The center of the building even creased downwards.

That is EXACTLY what happens in a controlled demolition. Nothing like that has *ever* resulted from anything else but controlled demolition. Do you understand this? If you do, hold on to it and keep it in mind. It's a pretty big clue no matter how much you provoke and abuse posters on an internet thread. No amount of sarcasm will change what actually happened in NYC, which is what you should be focused on unless you're arrogant enough to believe that you can't be wrong on this one and therefore don't even seriously consider what you're debating.

The odds against WTC7 falling as it did naturally are astronomical. Think about it. No steel beams offsetting the fall and causing a lean or anything. Even a single beam's resistance can offset a building's fall in a demolition if it isn't blown out. But this collapse was supposed to be natural? And if the damage was to the back side of it from the falling towers, you would at least expect WTC7 to fall backwards towards the missing columns if it had to fall at all.




top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join