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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
1. First, Al-qeada is real and is not a CIA invention.

2. bin Laden recieved no support from the CIA when he defended Afghanistan from the Russians.

3. Give me the link to a credible source that has 'top government officials' stating that 9/11 is a fraud.

4. Read the book 102 minutes, about the crashes themselves. It gives great information into the buildings themselves, and about WTC7.

5. The US government shot down that plane in PA, there was alot of confusion between the FAA and the armed forces, as well as the Airllines not moving faster. Critical time was lost here.

6. The WTC was not to code, not even close, and that is why there will never be any more investigation. Can you imagine the calss action lawsuits that could follow from workers and tenants? It was designed to squeeze every last inch of square footage, not to keep tenants safe.




posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
1. The BBC apparently thinks otherwise. Watch The Power of Nightmares, part 3 in particular.

2. What? Care to back this up?

3. WaPo about Morgan Reynolds. Look here for more decorated people speaking out.

4. Haven't read the book. What does it say about WTC7?

5. Critical time was lost because there was mass confusion due to multiple wargames replicating the events and the factual stand down brought about by altered SOP and Rumsfeld's supposed ignorance of the events.

6. Sources? The WTC were basically the flagship buildings of their time, it appears implausible that they would have delivered sloppy work.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
On #5, esdad, prove it. Prove the plane was shot down. I believe it was too, but I want to see you cough up the evidence to prove it, since you refuse to accept that al Qaeda was trained and funded by the CIA. Seems like you have a double standard going on there. So, yeah: prove Flight 93 was shot down.

Prove #6 too. Sounds like a rumor based on misundertandings to me. All skyscrapers are designed to withstand loads much greater than the maximum expected dead and live loads. If a skyscraper is not so designed, it would really be very obvious even without an attack like what was seen on 9/11. There is no evidence whatsoever of any natural structural failures in either WTC Tower after the jet impacts, and before the collapses. No steel glowing from heat, no local collapses, no nothing. The safety factor ratings on the support columns as detailed by NIST were more than adequate to hold multiples of the design loads.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I thought it was a fact that Al-Qaeda was trained and funded by the CIA?
Even if you look at Rambo III, I believe in that they glorify the Mujahdeen and dedicate the film to those 'brave fighter's or something.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
1. The CIA supplied arms to the Taliban regime, not Al-Qeada. Al-qeada was born out of this conflict.

2. Read 102 minutes, it is non-biased accounts of the people who survived. It will give you a very good idea of what happened inside, and the destruction that occured. Entire floors were gone and most elevators and stairs were destroyed or blocked. They made up the structure of the buildings. There is also proof of no fireproofing on the upper floors. Just read it, trust me.

3. This book also goes into the building of the WTC complex, and how it was constructed. WTC was never to code. It explains alot of hte structural questions you see in these posts.

4. I wish I had proof of the PA crash, but I mean, they found parts spread out over miles, right? The planes that were sent had no missles, so they would have had to shear the plane apart with a 20mm. The terrorists knew they couldn't make it and dumped it. I beleive that this occured, because we knew at that point it was headed for the White House and had a better grasp of the situation.

5. NIST concluded that the fire did bring it down.






[edit on 27-2-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
2. Read 102 minutes, it is non-biased accounts of the people who survived. It will give you a very good idea of what happened inside, and the destruction that occured. Entire floors were gone and most elevators and stairs were destroyed or blocked. They made up the structure of the buildings.


Yeah, that's from when the jets flew into the buildings. Some floors sort of got destroyed in some places.

However, neither the floor systems nor the elevators and stairs made up the structure of the building, for practical discussion here. What made up the structure were the support columns located around the perimeter and within the core, and a small minority of these were severed/damaged. Trusses similarly, as only sections of floors were knocked out.


There is also proof of no fireproofing on the upper floors.


Which is why it was fortunate that the fires did not heat the steel to dangerous temperatures anyway. Didn't even approach critical temps, or we would've seen glowing in broad daylight.


Just read it, trust me.


You should whip the book out and give us some specifics, because frankly I don't feel like buying a book like that just to respond to your posts. Unless it's the new NIST report or something, I seriously doubt it sheds much "un-biased" light on what we already know.


3. This book also goes into the building of the WTC complex, and how it was constructed. WTC was never to code. It explains alot of hte structural questions you see in these posts.


Can you give some specifics?


4. I wish I had proof of the PA crash, but I mean, they found parts spread out over miles, right?


Yeah, and that's mainly what leads me to believe that Flight 93 was shot down. Parts were found laying in forests, open fields, etc., miles from the crash site.

But a lot of the time, people won't buy stuff like this. Comparatively, it's been pretty common knowledge that al Qaeda and the CIA were linked in the past. I was taught that in World History II in high school in 10th grade as a part of the curriculum. I suppose documents should be out there, but I wouldn't know where to look. The CIA in all likelihood does not publish in great detail their involvements with such groups, you know?


5. NIST concluded that the fire did bring it down.


NIST also offered no supporting evidence.

They said the steel was heated to critical temps, but gave no evidence of this, and if in fact the steel was so heated, it would have been glowing and we would have seen it.

NIST said trusses failed from heat but never provided any images of any actual trusses, let alone glowing hot trusses or any trusses failed from heat or even jet damage.

NIST said that buckling occurred as a result of truss failure but failed to provide evidence of buckling as a result of heat damage and not just of jet impact damage, and further neglected to show any buckling columns at all, but only the aluminum facade panels.

So really how they came to such conclusions so surely is beyond me.

What's more, they don't even try to explain how the collapses physically functioned, either. They only tell you how they think the collapses initiated. That's all the whole report is on. How they think the first floors failed. Nothing else. Beyond that, they just claim that such collapses were "inevitable."

That would be a lot like me explaining how Santa's sled might function (based on no actual evidence of course), but then describing his trips to every single necessary household in the world in one night as "inevitable." That's your NIST Report on the collapses of the Twin Towers.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Chase your tail for as long as you want, but you take the time to read the book. Go buy itself Mr. Self-rightous. It is nothing but first hand events, and is not trying to persuade anything, but remind us that this happened. I will ask again, like I have more than a dozen times.....

Where, is one, just one blasting cap? Just one?

You absorb only what appplies to your views . You find it strange that I think the government is covering up the plane in PA but wont buy into remote control planes and imploding the WTC.

1. NIST was conclusive, read it. I know it is long but take the time to do it. Not just reading quotes and links from websites, read the whole thing.

2. Research the building and structural design of the WTC, and how many of its own architects and designers did not approve of the plans, and the radical design. You do not need blueprints, there are plenty of pre 9/11 articles.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I will ask again, like I have more than a dozen times.....

Where, is one, just one blasting cap? Just one?


Prove to me that the towers were knocked out with C4 or some other conventional charge placed right onto the exterior columns. Seriously, if you want to blow up a building and make it look like a natural collapse, you're sure as hell not going to attach explosives to exterior columns or aynwhere else in plain view. I think you're losing sight of the overall goal that these guys would have.

Explosives were set off in rows floor by floor. I've posted links to video clips taken from below WTC2 collapsing that show the "squibs" coming out in perfectly symmetrical rows floor by floor by floor.



These stuck out individually, most likely because they went off at the wrong time. They look exactly like the puffs coming out in rows from each floor's collapse during the collapse of WTC2.

If you're going to argue that's from pressurized air, or some product of air, then you're going to have to prove that the WTC were air tight as they were being destroyed from the inside out, and could retain enough pressure to cause such explosive outbursts naturally.


You find it strange that I think the government is covering up the plane in PA but wont buy into remote control planes and imploding the WTC.


No; I find it strange that you'll buy Flight 93 was shot down, but won't buy something I was taught in my 10th grade history class. And I live in a rather rural area in a conservative state.


1. NIST was conclusive, read it. I know it is long but take the time to do it. Not just reading quotes and links from websites, read the whole thing.


I have read the NIST Report. Show me that anything I have just pointed out in my previous post is incorrect.


2. Research the building and structural design of the WTC, and how many of its own architects and designers did not approve of the plans, and the radical design. You do not need blueprints, there are plenty of pre 9/11 articles.


You might want to talk to Valhall or Griff (structural engineers) about this and see what they have to say about not needing structural information to validate what NIST claims. I'm not a structural engineer but I can still say from personal research that those pre-9/11 articles don't have ANY good information. We don't even know how much either tower weighed; there are different figures and none of them can be validated. It's that bad. Maybe you don't need relevant information when you don't care to do any actual research, but some of us here have actually tried to get the figures NIST lacks and the lack of information in general is pretty damned bad.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Ok, esdad...


You can deny Bin Laden's CIA ties all you want, but you will just keep looking silly.

I was gonna say Morgan Reynolds, but I'll add Cynthia McKinney, Ron Paul, the dean of the defense language school, and Paul Craig Roberts. That's a small list of govt people saying it. Doesn't matter, because you dropped that one quick and moved on to other stuff.

What's your explanation of the war games? How about the stand down? What about the Bin Laden family flight? What about the govt people warned not to fly to New York? Care to debunk that stuff?



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
1. First, Al-qeada is real and is not a CIA invention.

It is a CIA invention, Bush suplyed weapons to binladen directly, well isnt he the head of alquaida?.
bin laden and mister bush are friends, in fact they are still friends, i think his brother is still involved in the carleal group and bush is too.
Remember the bush and binladens have pictures with their whole families
bush and binladen included.



2. bin Laden recieved no support from the CIA when he defended Afghanistan from the Russians.

Rong , you want pictures?of them huging before 911 and henging out, I can get some.
Bush suplied binalden directly.He is deep in the weapons industry so is binladen's brother.
The fact that bolth families are involved in the U.S weapons industry makes it very clear.


3. Give me the link to a credible source that has 'top government officials' stating that 9/11 is a fraud.

What is credible for you?does it have to say C.I.A? son we did it but dont tell any one okay]



4. Read the book 102 minutes, about the crashes themselves. It gives great information into the buildings themselves, and about WTC7.

I dont even care anymore about the crash.
There is enough information to bring them down with out the crash details.


6. The WTC was not to code, not even close, and that is why there will never be any more investigation. Can you imagine the calss action lawsuits that could follow from workers and tenants? It was designed to squeeze every last inch of square footage, not to keep tenants safe.

I see you want to bring this where you like it, smart boy.
Why dont we talk about the terorists that crashed and are alive today.
they put pictures of them names included but they seem to be alive.
Why dont we talk about that shall we.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
"Denial will only lead to more deception and open paths to ignorance you can never return from" some drunk guy.....

You have your views, I have mine. It is in how you interpret what you read that seperates us. However, gravity is a proven law, and you have no evidence of explosives. I have had this battle too many times to continue.

I have given you a book, goto the library and check it out. It will provide you alot of insight into the building of the WTC.

I have done my research, I have read many books and have come to a rational conclusion. I am sure you remeber the "Occums razor" debate about this.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
"Denial will only lead to more deception and open paths to ignorance you can never return from" some drunk guy.....

You have your views, I have mine. It is in how you interpret what you read that seperates us. However, gravity is a proven law, and you have no evidence of explosives. I have had this battle too many times to continue.

I have given you a book, goto the library and check it out. It will provide you alot of insight into the building of the WTC.

I have done my research, I have read many books and have come to a rational conclusion. I am sure you remeber the "Occums razor" debate about this.


You asked for credible information.
well here we go.




Washington Post - 9/16/01 - 2nd Witness Arrested; 25 Held for Questioning
Two of 19 suspects named by the FBI, Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi, have the same names as men listed at a housing facility for foreign military trainees at Pensacola. Two others, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alnami, have names similar to individuals listed in public records as using the same address inside the base. In addition, a man named Saeed Alghamdi graduated from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, while men with the same names as two other hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari, appear as graduates of the U.S. International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., and the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, respectively


Here is another for you
Is bbc good enough?
news.bbc.co.uk...


BBC - 9/23/01 - Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
And there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive.



www.portal.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml


Mr Al-Omari, who was accused of hijacking the American Airlines plane that smashed into the the World Trade Centre's north tower, said that he was at his desk at the Saudi telecommunications authority in Riyadh when the attacks took place.

It's a scam.
That is for sure, in 24 hours you come up with names and pictures of people
that never set foot in united states.


Question how does the FBI identify from all the pasangers the terorists?
Which ones are not and which are ?And in 24 hours.
Remember they crashed they all died they cant ask them.




[edit on 27-2-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
"Denial will only lead to more deception and open paths to ignorance you can never return from" some drunk guy.....

You have your views, I have mine. It is in how you interpret what you read that seperates us. However, gravity is a proven law, and you have no evidence of explosives. I have had this battle too many times to continue.

I have given you a book, goto the library and check it out. It will provide you alot of insight into the building of the WTC.

I have done my research, I have read many books and have come to a rational conclusion. I am sure you remeber the "Occums razor" debate about this.



Yeah.

Still waiting for you to debunk the stuff from my last post. Like pepsi said, we can bring them down without the crash. But, I'm sure you have a nice explanation for the war games, warnings, etc...



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Um, what happened to the points that the original poster intended this thread to be? Most of the replies, after the first few, are irrelevant to his ponderings.

Are these intentional attempts to derail the thread from unanswered questions, into the same drivel that has been debated time and time again, never to be resolved?

I mean jeez, everything BUT a piece of plastic/paper - the supposed hijacker ID - is blown to nothingness?

This thread quickly turned into what the towers are and NIST [conlusive? NIST is conclusive to NIST]

Can the thread get back on track? Ya got to admit, those [OP's ponders] are rarely discussed. Hmm.

NN



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Ah, just like I thought.

Nothing from the so-called debunkers on my questions. See, y'all, that is PRECISELY my point. When you argue the scientific aspects, it's a battle royale. But, when you come at them with the non-scientific stuff that is FACT (remember, science does not deal in facts per se), you stun em. This is why I encourage those who think the official story is taurus feces to not focus as much of your energy on the science debate.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I am sure you remeber the "Occums razor" debate about this.


Which btw isn't the simplest solution is always best. It's the simplest solution that actually makes sense and works is usually the safest bet. Like Einstein said, as simple as possible and no simpler. Otherwise, lightning as God's way of being pissed would be correct over the actual cause of lightning, which is more complicated.

That means if the disappearance of angular momentum or a steady impulse of the collapse despite a number of blaring problems contradicts NIST's theory, then it doesn't work. It needs to take into account those issues, and others, relating to how such fires could have possibly sufficiently weakened enough steel, etc.

I'm sure you mean well with the reference to that book but you can at least post some of it or something, and their sources or whatever, and then use that to address the physics problems. Otherwise... we'd have to either take your word for it, or actually order a book to even respond, which imho would be a waste of money, as all of the info is probably online anyway. ;(



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I really don't think Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11.

Now ask why I say this.

Here is why I said what I did.

What the man said on 9/28/01



I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.


and



This system is totally in control of the American-Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word.



Now this is similar to what he said here.

Sometime in 1998



"The American government is leading the country toward hell. We say to the Americans as people and to American mothers, if they cherish their lives and if they cherish their sons, they must elect an American patriotic government that caters to their interests, not the interests of the Jews."


Then we bring up that nice little video of Bin Laden confessing to 9/11 straight out.

Ohh wait a minute, what is him or no?? Lets take a look real quick




Now does that last guy really look like him?????

Not to mention other things we have to think about like,

This guy was wearing jewelry, Bin Laden doesn't where jewelry.
This guy writes with his right hand, even on the FBI website for most wanted Bin Laden is left handed.

And this guy is wearing a watch, which Bin Laden does not.

So as you see there is more to this pie than meets the eye.


[edit on 3/4/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Also, from "Loose Change 2nd Edition" movie :




"The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every [attack]. I would like to assure the world that i did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."

-Osama bin Laden, from a statement issued to Al Jazeera within days of the 9-11 attacks



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Since this thread is about non-scientific irregularities might I throw one in?
www.aclu.org...
Sibel Edmonds


While an FBI translator, Edmonds discovered poorly translated documents relevant to the 9-11 attacks and reported the shoddy work to her supervisors. She also expressed concerns about a co-worker who had previously worked for an organization under FBI surveillance and had a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer also under surveillance. In addition, Edmonds claimed that she was told to work slowly to give the appearance that the agency was overworked so it would receive a larger budget, despite a large backlog of documents that needed translating.

Even though she followed all appropriate procedures for reporting her concerns up the chain of command, Edmonds was retaliated against and fired. After her termination, many of Edmonds' allegations were confirmed by the FBI in unclassified briefings to Congress. More than two years later, in May 2004, the Justice Department retroactively classified Edmonds' briefings, as well as the FBI briefings, and forced Members of Congress who had the information posted on their Web sites to remove the documents.


Also here
www.justacitizen.com...

I haven't seen this mentioned in the 9/11 threads and I have to wonder.

And I found this site for the 102 minutes book(it's survivor tales and I'm lost to the relevance of it to this thread).
theage.com.au...

Also there are a multitude of sources for the Al-Qaeda CIA link so I'm confused why esdad71 would suggest

1. First, Al-qeada is real and is not a CIA invention.

2. bin Laden recieved no support from the CIA when he defended Afghanistan from the Russians.



Al Qaeda is not linked to Saddam but is in fact a creation of the CIA



Covert Action Quarterly, a magazine devoted to exposing CIA operations like the arming, funding, and training of Bin Laden and his mujaheddin guerrillas during the Afghan-Soviet war.

www.oilempire.us...

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski
emperors-clothes.com...
members.aol.com...


Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians

www.guardian.co.uk...


the Al-Qaeda terror organization was established by the C.I.A in the 1980s. Al-Qaeda is nothing but a conveniently "Islamic" front which enables the C.I.A. to commit crimes in the name of Muslims

prisonplanet.tv...


Like any enemy of the Soviets, bin Laden was a favored ally of the CIA, which for a time tried to foment a full-fledged jihad between Islamic extremists and the Soviets. bin Laden and many of the mujahideen had been trained and funded by the CIA over the court of the decade-long occupation

www....-------------------------/library/history/terrorist-organizations/al-qaeda/

And there is a huge archive of material at Jane's Intelligence Review.

I do wonder why noone has mentioned Sibel though. I mean what with all the wandering light poles and self moving taxis and such why isn't anyone looking at the things that can be verified. Truthseeka I wish I had the answers to your questions but I have so many myself(most the same as you).
Keep pluggin.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I am sorry I cannot paste anything from that book, but there is information in there that talks about the planning and construction of the WTC. It is very very good information and gives you a better feeling as to why they collapsed.

bsbray, I understand we see 2 totally different views, and I have tried to digest all the websites with 9/11 conspiracy, and cannot swallow it. There is no proof, conclusive, of demolition. One blasting cap would sway me, jsut one.

Read 102 minutes and it explains the explosions that were heard, it gives some of the testimony and early phone calls and you realize where some of the misinturpretted communications came from. There were alot of theories that were created in that 102 minutes of horror.

Bin Laded did it, he has claimed responsibility in later commmincations. I believe it was his onw psyop to say that and turn the country against it's government. To me that is pretty plain to see.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join