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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Then why are these people not flown over here by the scholars for 9/11? or any other left wing organization? Because it is bull#, thats why....


REAL science doesn't have 'wings', madame.

nor does irrefutable truth.

truth like how long it took tower seven to fall in perfect symmetry, ie. 0.5 seconds longer than if it were falling through air. (oops, that's scientific. sorry.)

i'm going to give some unscientific stuff, soon. i think people will 'like' it.




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Steven Jones has identified himself as conservative, and has voted Republican. I think he may have even voted for Bush before getting into the 9/11 movement but I'm not sure on that one. He is a Mormon, after all. Brigham Young University, anyone?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
OK, why hasn't anyone flown one of these guys over? I would think a journalist like Geraldo would have a field day, or anyone else at FOX or MSNBC.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
OK, why hasn't anyone flown one of these guys over? I would think a journalist like Geraldo would have a field day, or anyone else at FOX or MSNBC.


www.question911.com...

They tried to make him look like a nut case.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
It was the non scientific smoking guns of 9/11 that sold me. Those were actually the least debatable and most damning.

Lets just say the WTC was not demolished by explosives. And all the other technical debates of 9/11, like cellphone issues, missile or no missile hitting the pentagon ect..............lets forget those things for the moment.

The following points are the biggest whammies.

1.Majority of big wigs were well out of the danger zone when the attacks hit.
2.Scientific no-brainer: passports on burning planes dont survive unscathed three blocks away.
And my list can go on and on........................


THAT'S what I'm talking bout! Fully!!


See, if you focus on the non-sci stuff, you will be MUCH more likely to smell a big rat. Unless you are an expert in physics and engineering (yeah, I know we have a lot of experts here
), your scientific analysis won't be dead on. Hell, not even the experts could be dead on (we're talking science here, remember?)

But, the non-sci stuff is NOT DEBATABLE!! There's no getting around warnings to govt officials, govt officials going public against the official story (yeah, I know, esdad71, no govt officials are doing this
), concurrent war games, etc. NO getting around that stuff!

Esdad71, you got nothing. Keep making excuses for these pieces of doo doo who did this. Just remember that they don't give a DAMN about you. You are a peon to them, a serf, a slave, just one of the cattle put on this earth for their use. But hey, it's better to go against those trying to expose the real and save the country, eh?



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Almost all the public officials listed in the link seem to think that there needs to be an independent investigation, or that the administration let it happen.
They are not saying that the buildings were demolished nor are they saying that it was all planned and carried out by the Bush Administration.

I personally think that it's very likely that they let it happen thinking it would be like the first WTC bombing, without realizing the massive destruction that was actually inflicted.

I think the demolition, no 757, and not done by terrorist theories are destracting us from finding real evidence showing that they ignored all the warnings on purpose, and thought they could use a minor attack to garner support.

The passport seems suspicious, but other minor items were also found untouched. Should we believe that they planted a frequent flyer card next to the remains of a passenger?

www.9-11commission.gov...



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Yeah, LeftBehind...

But the Feds were involved with the FIRST WTC attack...and the OKC bombing. Not to mention other cases where criminal elements of the US govt perpetrated terror attacks. Homey, when it comes to terror attacks, few can rival the US govt.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   
So Bin Ladens a CIA asset, but he says he wasn't behind 9-11, and even though he's a CIA asset we had to fake an interview so he takes responsibility? So if he's a CIA asset why the hell are we paying him if he's not doing his job? WTH, that doesn't make any sense no matter how you cut it.

Also, using politicians to support your arguments like Cynthia McKinney, or Ron Paul, is plain silly since they have their own agenda, they're about as believable as Trent Lott, and Tom Delay. Would you consider this believable? "Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said. I wouldn't, and neither should you.

If I was behind 9-11 and was reading all of this, I'd be laughing till I peed.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I have given more than enough evidence, to real things, and real people, to know that what I am stating is correct. The fact is that there is no evidence, you are rehashing half truths, and you choose to beleive who you want. This is your choice.

However, I have and do read both sides. I love the fact that you think Bush and co are so dumb, yet they could pull off a 9/11? Too funny.

Here is a list of all related military excercies leading up to 9/11. This is quite an interesting read. This will answer the last question you ahd about the military excercises.

www.cooperativeresearch.org.../11=militaryExercises

see what was actually going on, and how a 'major wargame' had been in progress fora week, the NORAD response, and where everyone was. The terror drill was a simulated chemiclal attack that was bieng done in NJ, not NY. The rest are all there. Remember, coincidence is just that, coincidence, unless you make it otherwise.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
But the Feds were involved with the FIRST WTC attack...and the OKC bombing. Not to mention other cases where criminal elements of the US govt perpetrated terror attacks. Homey, when it comes to terror attacks, few can rival the US govt.


Any proof? Even "non-scientific" evidence will do.

Let me guess, all the people we think were the perpetrators were actually brainwashed into doing this. I'm guessing Clinton is also part of this, and its all about the NWO taking over?

There is ample evidence that Mcveigh pulled off the OKC bombing. The same goes for the perpetrators of the first WTC attacks.

Do you have anything that outweighs the real evidence? Or do you just feel that it's true.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Greetings Fellow Believers,

Conspiracy theories without scientific evidence will lead to different scientific inquiries. However, without Science to investigate theories--there will be no justice for those who died on September 11th, 2001.

Justice is an institution that can't function without facts. If Justice existed for its own sake--then those accused of crimes would be deemed guilty until proven innocent. U.S. prisons would be overflowing with inmates.

Look at threads containing scientific facts concerning September 11th, and compare them to threads containing only theories and opinions. Objectively determine for yourself which thread could be brought to a courtroom to give prosecutors the tools necessary to bring the perpetrators of September 11th, 2001--to justice.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I have given more than enough evidence, to real things, and real people, to know that what I am stating is correct. The fact is that there is no evidence, you are rehashing half truths, and you choose to beleive who you want. This is your choice.


Just though I'd throw this back at you, with the addition that you're hardly the "debunker" to be going around tooting your own horn. At least Howard's posts have some scientific substance.


However, I have and do read both sides. I love the fact that you think Bush and co are so dumb, yet they could pull off a 9/11? Too funny.


Can you say... contradiction? You read both sides and yet think that we're saying Bush, the stupid one, orchestrated it?



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
wow. you non-conspiracy believers will believe ANYTHING can be ANYTHING, if it's the television that tells you that's what it is.


You summed it up quite good here man. This says it all. Do what the man says, think what the man tells you to think.. who owns the MSM, find out and you will know who did this to the US. Easy, just go and find out who owns the shares, who is the president etc. Too easy and that is why nobody is doing it.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Oh, hi bsbray, nice of you to show up, drop a one liner with no content and try to bash someone with an idea opposite of yours. Go toot your own horn and find some evidence of explosives their conspiracy boy. Oh, that's right, there isn't any, is there? I have been asking you that question for months....

Also, it is not a contridiction to read and study both sides so you know the strength and weakness of each arguement you create, enter or debate. It is common sense to be prepared and also helps to make informed decisons on what to support and defend, and what not to.

and another question, what does the BS stand for? I got a few ideas



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Oh, hi bsbray, nice of you to show up, drop a one liner with no content and try to bash someone with an idea opposite of yours. and another question, what does the BS stand for? I got a few ideas

The fact is that we have provided pictures , a credible source, and fbi statements.
You how ever have provided none, and based on a hunch of yours with out any debunking at all, you sustain your cause and want people to listen to you.
You just say a bunch of words with out any cover for them.


[edit on 21-3-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Yea too many coincidences the same day. If someone would come foward with this info and the scientific info too Bush will get impeached in no time. Some scientific evidence is agreed by almost all scientisits like the speed of the collapse.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
pepsi, go back and read the thread. I have commented on each and eery one of truthseeka's original points. Also, There is a long standing disagreement here that you are a month late and a dollar short on also, not to mention the fact that bsbray can more than defend himself.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
pepsi, go back and read the thread. I have commented on each and eery one of truthseeka's original points. Also, There is a long standing disagreement here that you are a month late and a dollar short on also, not to mention the fact that bsbray can more than defend himself.


You gave an explenation that the names are mistaken identitie or confusion.
And I told you that it cant because they have no way of knowing.
So based on your opinion how did they find out, you did not answer that so I dont see any debunking.
So I expect pictures with at least a credible link just the way I offered it to you


You keep on saying on and on that those are it and that the rest is just a name confusion, but I told you that they didint only put up names but gave the exact date of birth and put up pictures, now acording to credible news media some of them are alive, and pictures and date of birth match to them.

Prove that those are the criminals, how did they reach to the conclusion that those are the criminals, any evidence?
--------------------------------------

Other things.
Now I haved talked about this subject but I'm going to talk about it again.

I'll start up with some facts.


Prior knolege.
In betwen the last crash from wtc and the one from the pentagon there was an hour.




The whole country was aware. For example, at 9:06 AM the NY Police broadcast:
" 'This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon.'"
--'Daily News' (New York) 12 September 2001 (2)


They knew what hapend, they didint do anithing.


And here is a quote made by oficials from adews air force base


Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, [said]: 'The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'"

Yes adrews thought the pentagon didint know, so that's why they never scrabled jets.


But it seems that the whole pentagon knew when the impact took place at wtc, that gives them an hour to call adrews and inform them????????
One call and their up in the air, full armed fighter jets on the run way.

Here is the pentagon, They were waching tv.


'American Forces Press Service' reported that ordinary people working at the Pentagon worried they could be next
'We were watching the World Trade Center on the television,' said a Navy officer. 'When the second plane deliberately dove into the tower, someone said, 'The World Trade Center is one of the most recognizable symbols of America. We're sitting in a close second.'" --'DEFENSELINK News', Sept. 13, 2001 (3)



Other factors.
1 why did the fligh instructors quoted"we cant belive on this day that they managed to fly" ?
2 The hotel where they stayed was just a step away from NSA.
3 Why continiue to pay if you flunk and suck at it?
4 Why continue to pay for it if you plan on dieing in a crash?

None of the things make sence, you didint even manage to answer my first dilema with a debunk.






Just to be clear


"The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed."
--'USA TODAY' September 17, 2001 (5)



[edit on 21-3-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Oh, hi bsbray, nice of you to show up, drop a one liner with no content and try to bash someone with an idea opposite of yours.


Still learning the trade. Keep up the good work and I should have it down pat shortly.



Go toot your own horn and find some evidence of explosives their conspiracy boy. Oh, that's right, there isn't any, is there? I have been asking you that question for months....


The only problem is that I've gotten tired of repeating it, especially for someone who is just going to ignore it anyway.

Your bottom line is that you think the WTC were built like pieces of crap. That's how they managed to fall despite all of their alleged redundancy and etc. that everyone else knows they had, according to you. And ignore all the construction pictures showing massive core columns and all that, too. Flimsy. Stack of cards. All three buildings.

It must really be unfortunate for you, but all of the same problems are still relevant. Why? Because if you were honest about it you'd realize that the fires were not severe enough to damage the steel columns any more than they already were by the impacts. And if the impact damage was enough, then the buildings would most obviously have fallen right after the jets impacted and not so much later. And this is only speaking of WTC1 and WTC2.

This is what people have been pointing out since those towers fell: the fires were not hot enough. First, people on the "official" side said the fires melted the steel. I have no doubts that you would still buy this if it wasn't so obviously wrong, but after enough hell was raised, the obvious was admitted anyway that hydrocarbon fires could not have melted the steel. Then it went to the steel support columns just being sufficiently heated (above 600 C) for failure. Now, it's just that the trusses were significantly heated to cause failure (according to NIST).

Well, first of all, do you have your story straight yet? Or did you suspect from day one that it was the trusses? Or do you not even keep up, and don't even know the difference?

Well assuming you do have it straight now, where is the evidence of massive truss failure? And then once you provide that (which you never will), you can explain how 13 of the lightest floors of WTC1 pulverized 97 heavier, thicker-columned floors without so much as slowing down. Then you can change that explanation to account for the fact that the 13 floors to start were destroyed not too far into the collapse of WTC1, and most of the debris was ejected outwards from the towers anyway and didn't even fall onto the lower floors, once collapse had initiated.

If you just answer those questions in some manner that even begins to make sense scientifically then I'd be surprised. But I know you can't do it, because a smaller mass completely pulverizing a much larger mass without losing any momentum in the process is not physically possibly here on Earth, in any fashion that our sciences are aware of.

And btw, don't even try any stack-of-cards arguments, because concrete was pulverized into a fine powder. That means there was RESISTANCE when the towers fell, which means energy would've had to have been exerted to powderize that concrete, which means momentum SHOULD have been lost as the towers fell. Do you get what I'm saying here?


Also, it is not a contridiction to read and study both sides so you know the strength and weakness of each arguement you create, enter or debate. It is common sense to be prepared and also helps to make informed decisons on what to support and defend, and what not to.


Please explain how this has ANYTHING to do with what it's in response to.

You said you know both sides, and then proceed to assert we all think that the Bush Admin consists only of dunces on the level of Bush himself, and that they were the ones to plan 9/11. That sort of tells me that you either don't know what you're arguing against or are being dishonest.


and another question, what does the BS stand for? I got a few ideas


It's my first and middle initials: Brian Scott.

I bet you were wrong on this one too, eh?

[edit on 21-3-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Zing!

Bsbray11 just ROASTED you, esdad71! And sure, he got off topic with the science, but I don't give a damn; I agree with pretty much everything he said.

Remember how at first, it was the impact of the planes that did it. Then, when questions came and the idiots realized that bldg 7 was hit by no plane
, it switched to fires. Pretty slick, you cover all 3 then. The PROBLEM is that buildings have been scorched MUCH worse than these buildings; obviously, the one in Madrid comes to mind. Seriously, that frickin thing was blazing like Snoop back in the day, but it didn't collapse.

NOW, it's still the fires, but that has taken somewhat of a back burner to the idea that a caveman built these buildings. This one might stick for a while, especially since many of the diagrams for the buildings have mysteriously disappeared now...




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join