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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
After reading your first post, I have to say, you really know your stuff.

Keep up the good work.


Thanks. I hope you feel the same way about the rest of my posts.

The problem is I don't really want to insult anyone, but I am not about to believe something only because it's of epic proportions, which is what practically defines most peoples reasons for believing anything at all, if you ask me.

At the same time I don't want to deny weird stuff happens, and want to keep an open mind. But you know the saying: "A completely open mind is an empty mind".




posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Dont u get it, britain and the usa dont care who they kill muslims, arabs, japanese, chinese, indian, americans(911) where all the same they figured that out a long time ago, just not everybody lives in america so they can not control everybody so they are more likely to infiltrate other country's and force them to bow down to the new world order, america has more rules and laws than other country in the world and daily people wonder around thinking they are free when realy they are being force fed, just look at coca cola, taste like s*** but it sells by the buckets(one example).



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I keep posting the synopsis of findings from the book "Crossing The Rubicon" by Michael C. Ruppert as it stays away from the dangerous ground that is physical evidence and makes a clear case for complicity based on established facts that so far have been unchallenged. It is the 2nd largest selling book about the 9/11 attacks after the 9-11 Kean Commission report.


Source

The following is a synopsis of the case against Dick Cheney who was named as the prime suspect in the crimes on 9/11 by Michael C. Ruppert in Crossing the Rubicon.

MEANS: Dick Cheney and the Secret Service
Cheney was Commander in Chief on 9/11 calling the shots via Secret Service.

* Secret Service has the legal authority to take supreme command over all agencies in the United States in time of a national emergency on U.S. soil. Even the Air Force recognizes Secret Service supremacy.
* Secret Service has the highest technological communication systems of any agency in the U.S. - as it should.
* On 9/11 Secret Service had the technology to see FAA radar screens in real time.
* Secret Service was in the decision-making loop as early as 8:15am on 9/11, no later than 8:45am.
* Everything was in place on 9/11 for the Commander in Chief to have full supreme control of the Air Force via the Secret Service communication systems and legal mandate to take supreme command.
* However, Bush was reading about goats in Booker Elementary School. Secret Service was within arms' reach, and they chose to keep him there as the 9/11 plot unfolded. Bush's Secret Service detail was in full communication with Cheney's Secret Service agents in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) as the 9/11 plot unfolded.
* Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11 and Secret Service was the supreme command.



[Mod edit: added source link shortened quote]
Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6/29/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   


MEANS: Dick Cheney and the Secret Service
Cheney was Commander in Chief on 9/11 calling the shots via Secret Service.

* Secret Service has the legal authority to take supreme command over all agencies in the United States in time of a national emergency on U.S. soil. Even the Air Force recognizes Secret Service supremacy.
* Secret Service has the highest technological communication systems of any agency in the U.S. - as it should.
* On 9/11 Secret Service had the technology to see FAA radar screens in real time.
* Secret Service was in the decision-making loop as early as 8:15am on 9/11, no later than 8:45am.
* Everything was in place on 9/11 for the Commander in Chief to have full supreme control of the Air Force via the Secret Service communication systems and legal mandate to take supreme command.
* However, Bush was reading about goats in Booker Elementary School. Secret Service was within arms' reach, and they chose to keep him there as the 9/11 plot unfolded. Bush's Secret Service detail was in full communication with Cheney's Secret Service agents in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) as the 9/11 plot unfolded.
* Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11 and Secret Service was the supreme command.


Secret Service? Which one?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Claim 1) If you actually look at the man in the video, rather than pull the old “they all look alike” bit, you’ll see that it’s not osama bin ladin

Claim 2) I never heard of this being a reason not to believe the story

Claim 3) The eyewitness claims were not that there were other planes in the sky, but that they couldn’t agree on what type of plane hit the building, if it was a plane at all.

Claim 4) there was molten steel and thermite at the base of the buildings. The combination of the two usually means that the thermite created the molten steel. I haven’t read the specifics of the thermite finding however, so I’m not the one to comment. Have you read it?

Claim 5) the sway caused by high winds were greater than that caused by the plane impact, and the WTC survived those.

Claim 6) look above

Claim 7) Then why did they confiscate and refuse to release any video that would ‘prove them right’

Claim 8) The passport was found, but he black box was destroyed???? Sorry, that ain’t happenin’

Claim 9) The WOT is enough of an excuse to get anything done in the name of freedom, including removing individual rights, giving no bid contracts to buddies of the administration.

Also, you should google the project for a new American century.


umm claim 5 does not make sense, sure high winds put alot of force on the building by the high winds didnt blow almost completely through the building, and cause fires from furl exceeding 1000 degrees., steel looses 65 percent of its strength and 900 degrees so if the 80th floor was 1000 degrees it support structure made of "STEEL" was weak and there fore could not withstand the weight of all the floors from 81 on up to 110,

of course if you really wanted to dive into this further you could say that the company who built the towers was told by the governement to use a grade of steel that lost its strength at 900 degrees so the buildings would collapse,
yep makes about as much sense as wipping your butt before you poop

[edit on 29-6-2006 by zakattack]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
hey, dont bash the wipe first rule!


sorry, continue 8-)



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   

The problem is I don't really want to insult anyone, but I am not about to believe something only because it's of epic proportions, which is what practically defines most peoples reasons for believing anything at all, if you ask me.


The story of epic proportions is the one that the planes and office fire brought down two sky scrapers.

For most people this is the only thing possible, because anything else would be to horrible to believe.

In this discussion of the cause, there will never be a real truth that all will believe.

To me, from the instant I saw what happened I knew it was not the airplanes. No one will convince me otherwise.

To others it could only be the airplanes, they know it could be nothing else.

No matter the evidence presented, even the common sense that that little energy could do what it did to the buildings, many will never accept that there were other forces at work.

Enjoy ATS, and the discussions.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody
Secret Service? Which one?


This just gets more and more PATHETIC each time you post. You do understand the English word PATHETIC right?

Step 1: Present the weakest straw man arguments you can.
Step 2: Call us all fools/conspiracy theorists.
Step 3: Pretend to have an "open mid".
Step 4: Claim "conspiracies" cannot happen... too difficult.
Step 5: Get put on ignore by everyone here.

Good try whoever you are, but you need to be retrained in psy-ops and information warfare. Roark will help you. just ask him.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a few point to make a will be brief, and maybe i will be getting a "phone call" or "visit"

"The powerful people in the united states who i will refer to as a the gov't beleive they can get away with anything they want and they do Because good people don't think to look for criminal activity. Good people don't have criminal minds and they don't think criminally, and therefore when we have something put in front of us like ""9/11 " something that we all hold so precious and dear, we're not apt to look behind that, at what the reality is behind the scenes, and they were counting on good people to do absolutely nothing and to assume absolutely nothing. "



some people actually look at the evidence and decide no didn't happen no what about the planes and the people

well i say read this operation pearl

and have u heard of them identifying (thru dental records i presume) anyone from those two flights that crashed at the WTC site? i'm serious if anyone knows i'm intrested

another point to those who seem to think a theory is to be discredited because one example in one possibilty of a situation about a theory does not seem plausible or is discredited this is called false confirmation for those who can't understand this and think this way u should not even be allowed to type sinse all u'd be doing is wasting peoples time and energy trying to show you why your argument and your reasoning is flawed

there are those who DONT even bother to look at any other perspective than the offical gov'ts because this is so off from there beleif system that they don't consider it , i havean example for you and i don't blame u i use to beleive the same thing look at the example of this happening before and the gov't having to explain



u may be surprised to learn some secret gov't programs have been used in the name of national securtiy in the past (MK ULTRA) at the time the gov't said this was to protect us from the russians and there biological weapon threat it was in the name of national security , Later the u.s acknowledges it picked hundreds of people "off the street" without explaining to them and drugging them and preforming other disturbing mental experiment with '___' on them and as a result many died and the rest were mentally insane theraftor SO the gov't has been willing to risk losing the lives of it's citizens (by it's own doing) in the past for "national security" THE PATTERN REPEATS



[edit on 29-6-2006 by cpdaman]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
sorry for gram. errors i hate when i get all excited and type fast



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
operation pearl for u guys who need a plane explanation www.serendipity.li...



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by zakattack
steel looses 65 percent of its strength and 900 degrees so if the 80th floor was 1000 degrees it support structure made of "STEEL" was weak and there fore could not withstand the weight of all the floors from 81 on up to 110,


then why wasn't the non-weakened steel (floors 1-80) able to put up any resistance to the 30 floors on top? It's not possible for the entire building to fall at freefall speed when only the top had been weekened by fire.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
It's not possible for the entire building to fall at freefall speed when only the top had been weekened by fire.


Do you have the strucutral engineering credentials to back up that statement?

What is the impact force of an object that weighs 1 kg and falls 3 meters onto a surface that has 1 cm of give?







[edit on 29-6-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
No, but then again I don't have a Microsoft certification, but I seem to be able to do my job just fine. I also don't have an advanced degree in physics, but I can tell you that if an object is falling, and something gets in its way, it will stop falling, if only for a moment.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What is the impact force of an object that weighs 1 kg and falls 3 meters onto a surface that has 1 cm of give?


42?

No idea, but maybe yo can explain Howard Roark



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What is the impact force of an object that weighs 1 kg and falls 3 meters onto a surface that has 1 cm of give?

2940 newtons


Do you have the strucutral engineering credentials to back up that statement?

Do you have any to back up yours?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by reallynobody
Secret Service? Which one?


This just gets more and more PATHETIC each time you post. You do understand the English word PATHETIC right?

Step 1: Present the weakest straw man arguments you can.
Step 2: Call us all fools/conspiracy theorists.
Step 3: Pretend to have an "open mid".
Step 4: Claim "conspiracies" cannot happen... too difficult.
Step 5: Get put on ignore by everyone here.

Good try whoever you are, but you need to be retrained in psy-ops and information warfare. Roark will help you. just ask him.


Nice dodge. Predictable.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Do you have the strucutral engineering credentials to back up that statement?


Structural engineers aren't the leading experts on the physics of building collapses. Structural engineers take architectural plans and make them work, ie make buildings stand.

I know of a physicist, though, a Professor Emeritus actually, that has a lot of problems with the nonsense you're suggesting.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by zakattack
steel looses 65 percent of its strength and 900 degrees so if the 80th floor was 1000 degrees it support structure made of "STEEL" was weak and there fore could not withstand the weight of all the floors from 81 on up to 110,


then why wasn't the non-weakened steel (floors 1-80) able to put up any resistance to the 30 floors on top? It's not possible for the entire building to fall at freefall speed when only the top had been weekened by fire.


Why not?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   


Structural engineers aren't the leading experts on the physics of building collapses.


And your prof.E is?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join