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.

 

9/11 conspiracies are nonsense

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
strangely not one person felt compelled to point their camera at the alleged monstrous hole in the south face of the building and go click. All the other damaged buildings were photographed, so why did no one feel that the damage to WTC7 was photo-worthy?


Actually there were pictures taken, and even video. The problem is that the smoke from the giant hole obscures it.



To see the video watch screw loose change.

www.lolloosechange.co.nr...






Unsupported, deceptive rubbish from Chertoff's cousin's CIA-connected propaganda-rag here? What's ATS coming to? I thought for a moment I was on yahoo.groups...



Unsupported deceptive rubbish? Where's the support for your claim that one reporter at PM is Chertoff's cousin, other than sharing a last name.


www.911myths.com...


Here's the story, as best as I know: I'm not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I've never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him.

. . .

Nonetheless, I was one of 9 reporters on the story, not counting editors, photo researchers, photo editors, copy editors, layout designers, production managers, fact-checkers, etc., etc., etc. who worked on this story.




posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody
Well obviously the fuel was hot enough to melt some steel,otherwize there would not have been molten parts.


Horrible arguement, just horrible. Considering that the point we're debating is just that, your statement will be dismissed.

But a fire isn't as simple as people make it out.
As it progresses it does get hotter and hotter, the maximum temperature of jet fuel has nothing to do with the maximum termperature of a fire, even if it runs (partly?) on jet fuel. That the maximum temperature of jet fuel can't reach above 700 degrees only means that the stuff can't produce any more heat at any given time.


A fire can only get as hot asit's fuel will allow. The fuel in the building was standard office furniture and supplies. Before making it into the building, they have to comply with the fire code.


Steel and other heatconducting materials absorp heat like a battery and it builts up till it explodes (concrete explodes at around 2000 degree C) or melts. In the case of steel, the fire retardent foam should have prevented heat conduction, however it was found to be lacking. Iinvestigation clearly shows that the foam was only applied partially, and even a single spot could have allowed heat conduction. (maybe a new basis for a heory?)


Now you're making stuff up. A conductor only transmits heat, it does not create it. Heat can not 'build up' in steel until it explodes. Try this, hold a lighter up to a paperclip. No matter how long you hold it, that paperclip will never get hotter than the fire.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
[edit on 30-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   
wtf. i dont doubt the holocaust. what do you mean? my even bringing that up was about the US having connections to allowing that to happen. This is pointless huh. I didnt say you showed disrespect. Are we even on the same subject? in the same thread? jesus christ



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
A fire can only get as hot asit's fuel will allow. The fuel in the building was standard office furniture and supplies. Before making it into the building, they have to comply with the fire code.

Now you're making stuff up. A conductor only transmits heat, it does not create it. Heat can not 'build up' in steel until it explodes. Try this, hold a lighter up to a paperclip. No matter how long you hold it, that paperclip will never get hotter than the fire.


I didn't say a conductor creates energy I said it stores it like a battery stores electricity in chemical form. And I said energy builts up till steel gets weak, not explode. Dont you go twisting my words.

A conductor can conduct heat but also store it to a material-specific limit. Why do you think that the temperature of your car rises above the temperature of the sun rays? Why do you think you can walk in a desert in daytime without getting boiled to death instantaneously but can boil an egg on your radiator?

[edit on 30-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by innerevolt
wtf. i dont doubt the holocaust. what do you mean? my even bringing that up was about the US having connections to allowing that to happen. This is pointless huh. I didnt say you showed disrespect. Are we even on the same subject? in the same thread? jesus christ


Sorry? I must have misunderstood... You guys paranoia must be rubbing off on me.




In any case... wouldn't a lot of small terror over time make more sense than one large one? Since you can't repeat a really large one every few decades.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
thats okay... and cute. if paranoia means being concious, then i guess im paranoid. basically all of your responses with exception to your first have been so out of context i really do think you are doing it on purpose. either that or you are mildy retarded. you're smart enough to use the internet and type etc, but just not hold an intelligent conversation. You would get fired from most jobs in which you need to have productive conversations.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by innerevolt
thats okay... and cute. if paranoia means being concious, then i guess im paranoid. basically all of your responses with exception to your first have been so out of context i really do think you are doing it on purpose. either that or you are mildy retarded. you're smart enough to use the internet and type etc, but just not hold an intelligent conversation. You would get fired from most jobs in which you need to have productive conversations.


ooook. If this is what you are like when you are nice to someone than I liked you better when you where angry at me. No I'm not "mildly retarded", I'm one year away from getting a masters degree in molecular biology, for what it matters. Afterwards I would also require you to address me with my correct title "master".


Maybe I don't respond in the way people expect me to, but it is better than IGNORING questions. One in particular which nobody even attempted to explain. Since we are having such a nice little conversation here, perhaps you can answer it?

Most conspiracy theorists believe that:
1) the passenger planes where hijacked by secret service personnel
2) the crashes where faked
3) the passenger planes disposed of

OK?

Now my question is: Why didn't the gov just crash the real planes?



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody
Most conspiracy theorists believe that:
1) the passenger planes where hijacked by secret service personnel
2) the crashes where faked
3) the passenger planes disposed of

OK?



Not Okay.
Not what most 'conspiracy theorists' believe
This is your conspiracy theory, not mine.

Now let me say,

Most conformist thinkers believe,

1) The twin towers had no support structure whatsoever and were on the brink of falling for decades.
2) Anyone who doesn't believe everything the government says is disloyal and paranoid.
3) That all 'conspiracy theorists' are exactly the same, and by disproving a minor point logically disproves every point.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody

Originally posted by innerevolt
thats okay... and cute. if paranoia means being concious, then i guess im paranoid. basically all of your responses with exception to your first have been so out of context i really do think you are doing it on purpose. either that or you are mildy retarded. you're smart enough to use the internet and type etc, but just not hold an intelligent conversation. You would get fired from most jobs in which you need to have productive conversations.


ooook. If this is what you are like when you are nice to someone than I liked you better when you where angry at me. No I'm not "mildly retarded", I'm one year away from getting a masters degree in molecular biology, for what it matters. Afterwards I would also require you to address me with my correct title "master".


Maybe I don't respond in the way people expect me to, but it is better than IGNORING questions. One in particular which nobody even attempted to explain. Since we are having such a nice little conversation here, perhaps you can answer it?

Most conspiracy theorists believe that:
1) the passenger planes where hijacked by secret service personnel
2) the crashes where faked
3) the passenger planes disposed of

OK?

Now my question is: Why didn't the gov just crash the real planes?


thats really not what I'M talking about or what I WAS trying to talk about. Guess I can't be too surprised though. I haven't mentioned any of those 3. I was talking about your 9th point from the start and tried to thru the rest of "our nice little conversation" but for some reason you kept going off somewhere else. Ignoring questions? you haven't answered or responded legitamately to any of mine (with exception to your 1st response) I'm not saying your ignoring them necessarily. But i cant think of any other reason for you to not answer me or provide a good response at least pertaining to my comments. That's why i thought you might me retarded(mildly) in you conversation comprehension skills or just doing it on purpose.
I've seriously responded and tried 4 good times with your responses not even addressing mine. I don't mean to quit, but we aren't getting anywhere and Im satisfied with my effort.
umm, good luck with your masters?



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by reallynobody
Most conspiracy theorists believe that:
1) the passenger planes where hijacked by secret service personnel
2) the crashes where faked
3) the passenger planes disposed of

OK?



Not Okay.
Not what most 'conspiracy theorists' believe
This is your conspiracy theory, not mine.

Now let me say,

Most conformist thinkers believe,

1) The twin towers had no support structure whatsoever and were on the brink of falling for decades.
2) Anyone who doesn't believe everything the government says is disloyal and paranoid.
3) That all 'conspiracy theorists' are exactly the same, and by disproving a minor point logically disproves every point.



1)
Did I mention that? Where?

2)
I am not an American, wtf do I care whether someone is loyal to it's government.
And there are plenty of stuff that I believe in. Are conspiracies some sort of package deal or something? That I have to believe in all or none?

3)
Most that have replied to my thread appear to think that some or all of the plane crashes where faked. Are the people on this thread not representative for the conspiracy community? And yes, by all means, let's exclude logic as evidence.


He, I just noticed, you still haven't answered my question. Never mind, I really didn't think anyone would give me a good answer.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by innerevolt

Originally posted by reallynobody

Maybe I don't respond in the way people expect me to, but it is better than IGNORING questions. One in particular which nobody even attempted to explain. Since we are having such a nice little conversation here, perhaps you can answer it?

Most conspiracy theorists believe that:
1) the passenger planes where hijacked by secret service personnel
2) the crashes where faked
3) the passenger planes disposed of

OK?

Now my question is: Why didn't the gov just crash the real planes?


thats really not what I'M talking about or what I WAS trying to talk about. Guess I can't be too surprised though. I haven't mentioned any of those 3. I was talking about your 9th point from the start and tried to thru the rest of "our nice little conversation" but for some reason you kept going off somewhere else. Ignoring questions? you haven't answered or responded legitamately to any of mine (with exception to your 1st response) I'm not saying your ignoring them necessarily. But i cant think of any other reason for you to not answer me or provide a good response at least pertaining to my comments. That's why i thought you might me retarded(mildly) in you conversation comprehension skills or just doing it on purpose.
I've seriously responded and tried 4 good times with your responses not even addressing mine. I don't mean to quit, but we aren't getting anywhere and Im satisfied with my effort.
umm, good luck with your masters?


Dude, that is pretty much what most die hard theorists believe. If you are not one of them then I feel the need to congratulate you. I am also replying to like 5 people after each other, so if I didn't answer question of you maybe you should just state it more clearly. My english may appear ok but Im really not a native speaker so perhaps some sort of american style subtlety is lost in your rantings about me being retarted, but it appears to me that you are the one that is evading questions.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
12 pages of conspiracy I have my own blog but they put it in the skunky category. But if you believe in conspiracy and can take some mystique then you should read my post in "let's catch this terrorist" we should support one another .People are blind . Alot of them young and don't know the ropes.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   


Unsupported, deceptive rubbish from Chertoff's cousin's CIA-connected propaganda-rag here? What's ATS coming to? I thought for a moment I was on yahoo.groups...




Its been pointed out here more than once and documented by B. Chertoff that he is not related to M.Chertoff.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody
1)
Did I mention that? Where?

2)
I am not an American, wtf do I care whether someone is loyal to it's government.
And there are plenty of stuff that I believe in. Are conspiracies some sort of package deal or something? That I have to believe in all or none?

3)
Most that have replied to my thread appear to think that some or all of the plane crashes where faked. Are the people on this thread not representative for the conspiracy community? And yes, by all means, let's exclude logic as evidence.


He, I just noticed, you still haven't answered my question. Never mind, I really didn't think anyone would give me a good answer.


(Since we're doing this now)

1)Apparently you missed the entire point of my post. Just as I never mentioned that the secret service piloting the planes, you never said this.

2)You have mentioned many times that the only reason we believe this is a conspiracy is because we are paranoid. I could quote, but I think you know what you said

3)Okay. Show me where most of the people posted this. I can tell you that the majority of people who think it was planned do believe tha planes crashed into the towers, but that isn't what brought the towers down.

Just look at building 7
7777777777777777777777777777777777777777



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

LeftBehind
Where's the support for your claim that one reporter at PM is Chertoff's cousin, other than sharing a last name.


Vushta
Its been pointed out here more than once and documented by B. Chertoff that he is not related to M.Chertoff.


Fair enough. I must admit it is something I hadn't taken the time out to confirm or dispel. My mistake.


It doesn't, however, change any of my contentions regarding the content of the PM article, the manner in which it was written, nor the fallacies and omissions therein.

[edit on 2006-6-30 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by reallynobody
1)
Did I mention that? Where?

2)
I am not an American, wtf do I care whether someone is loyal to it's government.
And there are plenty of stuff that I believe in. Are conspiracies some sort of package deal or something? That I have to believe in all or none?

3)
Most that have replied to my thread appear to think that some or all of the plane crashes where faked. Are the people on this thread not representative for the conspiracy community? And yes, by all means, let's exclude logic as evidence.


He, I just noticed, you still haven't answered my question. Never mind, I really didn't think anyone would give me a good answer.


(Since we're doing this now)

1)Apparently you missed the entire point of my post. Just as I never mentioned that the secret service piloting the planes, you never said this.

2)You have mentioned many times that the only reason we believe this is a conspiracy is because we are paranoid. I could quote, but I think you know what you said

3)Okay. Show me where most of the people posted this. I can tell you that the majority of people who think it was planned do believe tha planes crashed into the towers, but that isn't what brought the towers down.

Just look at building 7
7777777777777777777777777777777777777777


...

Fine. Let's do this.. again.

1)
And you missed my point. Which was to get an answer as to why many theorists believe that some of the crash sites where not done by real planes, like the one heading towards the White House and the one that crashed into the Pentagon.
But if you didnt believe in that to begin with then it is ok. Many people posted replies stating otherwize.

2)
Actually no. I do believe many people here are too paranoid but paranoia isn't a
actually a reason to do something, it is only a description of a state of mind.
I believe that the reason why people believe in outlandish conspiracies without much sceptic self-critic, is because it has basically turned into a religion.

Many Christians call people that try to disprove anything in Christianity servants of the devil in the same way many conspiracy theorists call people that try to disprove anything in the conspiracy community agents of the government.


Even the slogan "the truth will come out" seems plagarized from religions. Oh and let's not forget, the aliens will come and save us! Many of you guys all think you broke out of the matrix right? Well I think you broke out of one matrix only to find yourselves into another matrix and this time of own design.


3) You actually are not aware of the legions of people that post about how "there was not enough debris to be a passenger plane" and "the hole in the Pentagon was not big enough to be caused by a passenger plane" ?! Give me a break dude.


And building 7? I posted what I think happened earlier in this thread. Last post thread 11. Go read and think about it first before replying.


ps I also believe in God, and aliens, just not in the cultish manner others do.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   


Now you're making stuff up. A conductor only transmits heat, it does not create it. Heat can not 'build up' in steel until it explodes. Try this, hold a lighter up to a paperclip. No matter how long you hold it, that paperclip will never get hotter than the fire.


No. he's not just making stuff up.

If heat cannot escape via convection, conduction or radiation, a oxygen starved fire can produce higher temperatures than an free burning oxygen rich fire.

This was my point to whoever I asked the question about heat vs. temp. I lost track of that one, it seems that the posts have gotten rediculously long with a blunderbus approach of bits and pieces of information and vague concepts requiring long detailed quotes and responses....only to be handwaved away by the CTs and some other thing brought up to send someone off on a wild goose chase...only to have THAT handwaved away and a finger pointed in another direction...not goin' there.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
All you use as reference to WTC7 is the PM article, which is full of holes.

As for planes flying into the WTC, everyone saw that happen right? There is no doubt that it happened. As forthe other locations, there is no video evidence, and any that exists has been suspiciously confiscated, and never released. This means that there is something that they don't want the public to know. That is what is known as a cover-up, so one must ask the reason for the cover up of something that the government should want public.

Flight 77, again, what reason would anyone have to believe that it crashed in that field, other than being told so by a government that has a habit of lying to the people of the world.

With that, I'm going to stop posting in this thread.

It is obvious that you don't have any evidence to prove your side, only attempts to disprove my side.
You dodge direct questions, rather than answer them, or take them to heart.

It looks like you came into the debate with little knowledge of the conspiracy, and, rather than learn about it and see the truths in much of it, you latch on to anyone or anything that appears to be on your side of the arguement. It doesn't matter if the source is wrong, tainted, or unreliable in any other way.

Good Day Sir!!



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by reallynobody
Most conspiracy theorists believe that:
1) the passenger planes where hijacked by secret service personnel
2) the crashes where faked
3) the passenger planes disposed of

OK?



Not Okay.
Not what most 'conspiracy theorists' believe
This is your conspiracy theory, not mine.

Now let me say,

Most conformist thinkers believe,

1) The twin towers had no support structure whatsoever and were on the brink of falling for decades.
2) Anyone who doesn't believe everything the government says is disloyal and paranoid.
3) That all 'conspiracy theorists' are exactly the same, and by disproving a minor point logically disproves every point.



So what IS your theory?

This seems to be a consistant trait amoung CTs. --They never really state what exactly their theory is. I believe that the reason for this is that if something specific is stated in no uncertain terms, you run the risk of having to defend the specifics of that theory.
If you keep it vague and ever slightly changing, you can dance around any questions asked endlessly by simply stating that--" I never said THAT--I'm just pointing out that ----isn't THAT odd?"--or Didn't THAT look strange"? They will never answer any core questions about a controlled demo-----if thats what their theory is--who knows, they never state what their theory is.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join