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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
And your prof.E is?


Steven Jones.

Here he is giving a lecture on the WTC collapes:

video.google.com...

You should watch through it and hear him out.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by bsbray11]




posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Why not?


Well, the little I know about newtonian physics tells me that an object at rest tends to saty at rest until acted on by an external force. It seems very very improbable that the top quarter of a building could have the force to collapse (into it's own footprint) the supporting 3/4 of the building. Then have it happen again. Then have another building collapse with a similar result, from drasticly different circumstances.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by cpdaman
"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. "


Not just the fact that the average American doesn't think criminally, but also the fact that the social fears of speaking against opinions held by authority, particuarly in the face of mass capitol crime; actually control us to a large degree, and so there is a retreat from facts and evidence into the more socially comfortable position through cognitive dissonance then dissociation.

quote]Originally posted by cpdamanthere 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 have an 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

There was a time of accountability as a standard. The trend to non acccountability has been well noted by the public following 9-11, however, many kept silent due to the social fear aspect mentioned above. Ostrich mentality.


Originally posted by cpdamanu 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


It is deeper than that, but what you say is true. Using fear invokes the reptile instinct. Lizards have no courage and do not think well. That is applicable to controlling people under many conditions.

Good post!
You are not fooled by the blinders, puppets and cartoons. You look past the fringe and find points that relate. Connecting the dots is next.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Why not?


Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Well, the little I know about newtonian physics tells me that an object at rest tends to stay at rest until acted on by an external force. It seems very very improbable that the top quarter of a building could have the force to collapse (into it's own footprint) the supporting 3/4 of the building. Then have it happen again. Then have another building collapse with a similar result, from drasticly different circumstances.



Loved it so much I had to say it louder.

Did you ever hear the story about The tower hit first, hit worst, burned worst, fell last.?


[edit on 29-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Hi all,

Im a new member. I find this 11/9 (have to be different!) discussion really interesting. Good points raised on both sides conspiracy / anti-conspiracy.
I am an open minded person, I tend to also like to see proof before I really believe something, however I do believe there are many many strange things going on in this world which will probably never be explained which is why it is good that there are sites like this for like-minded people.
Anyways,
having read this thread from the start, and let me just say i am on the fence as regards what happened, I havent yet researched in depth some of the many opinions on ats, what I'd like to ask is:
does anyone believe the truth will out?
will evidence become available which will support the whole conspiracy theory ?
I feel the further we get from this event the more difficult it will be to shed new light on it.
I have a feeling our children or the next generation will be the ones to find the truth.
Just my thoughts.
By the way can anyone reccomend some interesting threads I could check out?
Theres some pretty bizarre stuff here, theres a lot to get through.
Is there anything on ATS which has really opened your eyes or made you believe in a certain conspiracy?
If there is I would really appreciate the heads up.
Cheers.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Well, the little I know about newtonian physics tells me that an object at rest tends to saty at rest until acted on by an external force.


By "an external force," do you mean like gravity?


Originally posted by Rasobasi420 It seems very very improbable that the top quarter of a building could have the force to collapse (into it's own footprint) the supporting 3/4 of the building.


You mean after it accelerated downward, due to gravity?

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...



Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Then have it happen again. Then have another building collapse with a similar result, from drasticly different circumstances.


Gravity – It’s the LAW!


[edit on 29-6-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Gravity wouldn't explain it Roark. Sure it makes things fall, but other things stop things from falling, like support structures that, even if weak, would slow, or stop, the collapse.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
[edit on 29-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:54 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.



Well that is the last time I ask you a question sheesh.


Im not sure how asking which secret service you are talking about is a straw man argument? Also dont recall calling anyone a fool. I did call people conspiracy theorists, this I did cause you guys theorize about conspiracies. Is the title not correct?

And for someone who is being put on ignore I sure got me a popular thread going.
Or are you already ignoring me?? Lame move, ignoring me right after posting a flame. Coward! Stand and fight like a man!

[edit on 29-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Gravity wouldn't explain it Roark. Sure it makes things fall, but other things stop things from falling, like support structures that, even if weak, would slow, or stop, the collapse.


Not if it's a buckle related failure.

Notice that the external wall is buckling inward.




posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I see everyone that believes in 9/11 conspiracies has yet to answer the big question:

1) IF it was the shadies/gov that hijacked those planes instead of arabs

2) AND the plane crashes where faked

3) AND the real planes disposed of in another way


Why didn't the shadies just crash the real planes? They already had them under their control! They where already willing to kill people! I just don't get peoples reasoning. What on earth lead them to fake plane crashes when it would be easier to cause the real deal?

I have yet to receive an answer on this question and that is annoying. If people hadn't made the 9/11 conspiracies so outlandish I might actually think them more likely.

Which brings me to my next question:
MAny people call me, and everyone that disagrees with their own personal pet theory, a government agent. Why?

If I was the government, I would not send debunkers. I would send theorists with crazy ass theories so that people are more and more led astray from the truth and no serious researcher would want to look into it anymore. (sort of what is happening now
) Debunking just makes people believe it more, but more and more wilder theories is better then any cover up ever was. Remember Roswell?

Think you can still find out what really happened there with all the fake and altered stuff mixed in with real info? In a few years the truth behind the 9/11 incident, whatever it's nature, will be equally unrecoverable if things continue like this.

I would think it likely that the gov would use peoples paranoia against themselves. 100% skepticism is as damaging as 100% lack thereof, afterall.



[edit on 29-6-2006 by reallynobody]

[edit on 29-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody
I see everyone that believes in 9/11 conspiracies has yet to answer the big question:

1) IF it was the shadies/gov that hijacked those planes instead of arabs

2) AND the plane crashes where faked

3) AND the real planes disposed of in another way


Why didn't the shadies just crash the real planes? They already had them under their control! They where already willing to kill people! I just don't get peoples reasoning. What on earth lead them to fake plane crashes when it would be easier to cause the real deal?

I have yet to receive an answer on this question and that is annoying. If people hadn't made the 9/11 conspiracies so outlandish I might actually think them more likely.

Which brings me to my next question:
MAny people call me, and everyone that disagrees with their own personal pet theory, a government agent. Why?

If I was the government, I would not send debunkers. I would send theorists with crazy ass theories so that people are more and more led astray from the truth and no serious researcher would want to look into it anymore. (sort of what is happening now
) Debunking just makes people believe it more, but more and more wilder theories is better then any cover up ever was. Remember Roswell?

Think you can still find out what really happened there with all the fake and altered stuff mixed in with real info? In a few years the truth behind the 9/11 incident, whatever it's nature, will be equally unrecoverable if things continue like this.

I would think it likely that the gov would use peoples paranoia against themselves. 100% skepticism is as damaging as 100% lack thereof, afterall.



Rabble Rabble Rabble
Sounds like a bunch of
Rabble rabble rabble to me.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by reallynobody
I see everyone that believes in 9/11 conspiracies has yet to answer the big question:

1) IF it was the shadies/gov that hijacked those planes instead of arabs

2) AND the plane crashes where faked

3) AND the real planes disposed of in another way


Why didn't the shadies just crash the real planes? They already had them under their control! They where already willing to kill people! I just don't get peoples reasoning. What on earth lead them to fake plane crashes when it would be easier to cause the real deal?

I have yet to receive an answer on this question and that is annoying. If people hadn't made the 9/11 conspiracies so outlandish I might actually think them more likely.

Which brings me to my next question:
MAny people call me, and everyone that disagrees with their own personal pet theory, a government agent. Why?

If I was the government, I would not send debunkers. I would send theorists with crazy ass theories so that people are more and more led astray from the truth and no serious researcher would want to look into it anymore. (sort of what is happening now
) Debunking just makes people believe it more, but more and more wilder theories is better then any cover up ever was. Remember Roswell?

Think you can still find out what really happened there with all the fake and altered stuff mixed in with real info? In a few years the truth behind the 9/11 incident, whatever it's nature, will be equally unrecoverable if things continue like this.

I would think it likely that the gov would use peoples paranoia against themselves. 100% skepticism is as damaging as 100% lack thereof, afterall.



Rabble Rabble Rabble
Sounds like a bunch of
Rabble rabble rabble to me.



Wow. It's like peoples brains just shut down whenever a good argument is made.
Is that a conditioned responce or where you improvising? In any case you proved my point.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by reallynobody]

[edit on 29-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Show us enough so-called buckling to explain why either collapse initiated.

You know -- enough buckling to compromise about 75% of the total support (including core columns) on any given floor.

Showing 4 or 5 buckled columns is what... not even 1% there?

The impacts did a lot more damage than that, and they knocked out less than 15% of the perimeter columns in either Tower. NIST's explanation is ridiculously unsupported considering how few alleged buckled columns they show. And what's worse is that they don't even establish conclusive link to heat-related bowing, or even properly establish buckling at all.

That's why NIST's work was theoretical, speculative, and why they had to crank up the temps so high in their computer simulations to try to get a failure. And they didn't even get enough of a failure even then, did they?

[edit on 29-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
(1) United airlines would have known if the planes were flown of course because of gps. There were honest hard working citezens/witnesses low down on the chain of command at United Airlines that saw the fight on its gps route. Being able to scramble the gps would take a million dollars of electronis loaded onto a passenger plane in say an hour or less without crew members or baggage people noticing. This would of called for a plan that included thousands of people. It would be nearly impossible to execute for the sheer size of the opperation.

(2) The explosion of the plane as it enters the building grows so that the further into the building the plane traveledthe larger the mass of explosion grew ruff diagram below.


(3) If bombs/tnt/whatever where placed in the building somone would have noticed.

(4) The buildings fell at same height as plane crash good piolots

(5) Politics looking to make money? Hurt the us economy?


Ive decided doesnt make sense

(6) 3/4 planned planes make it and the fourth still had people on it?

Hmmm



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Taurus feces, Howard.

Gravity is a REALLY weak force, compared to the other forces. So, your explanation to Rasobasi was pretty lame. But, don't stop with your spiel...


Reallynobody, what are you doing? You present some of the most booty conspiracy theories, then lump the valid ones along with them and dismiss them all. Now, I haven't read this whole thread, but from what I have read, that's precisely what you're doing.

Does it bother you that the hijackers were govt agents or that our govt KNEW not only that the attack was coming, but the nature of the attack?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody
Wow. It's like peoples brains just shut down whenever a good argument is made.
Is that a conditioned responce or where you improvising? In any case you proved my point.


Actually, I was in a rush, and wanted to give you the basic feelings I had when I read your post. Classic attenpt to divert attention from the evidence, and onto some hypothetical scenerio (ie. Rabble ) . I once again bring you back to the Nut Slapper, and his point.


originally posted by slap nuts
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.


You have done little to attempt to prove your point, other than by belittling those who make the opposing points. You are obviously completely ignoring most of the evidence presented, and only answering the questions with easy answers.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Taurus feces, Howard.

Gravity is a REALLY weak force, compared to the other forces. So, your explanation to Rasobasi was pretty lame. But, don't stop with your spiel...


Reallynobody, what are you doing? You present some of the most booty conspiracy theories, then lump the valid ones along with them and dismiss them all. Now, I haven't read this whole thread, but from what I have read, that's precisely what you're doing.

Does it bother you that the hijackers were govt agents or that our govt KNEW not only that the attack was coming, but the nature of the attack?


That makes no sense of any kind.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Let me apologise in advance if some of this has been DEFINITIVELY settled elsewhere - I've been looking into things other than 9/11 recently and consequently may not be conversant with all the latest so please fill me in on anything I've been mistaken on in the following post, but given my own feelings and the rather amusing, challenging title of this thread I thought I'd go ahead and make a contribution.

The crucial deciding factor in this discussion in my opinion is building 7.

Not to flog a dead horse but I point out that this building was NOT hit by a plane and spontaneously imploded neatly into its own footprint with several characteristics of its collapse strongly indicating controlled demolition (to say nothing of Larry Silverstein's "confession" on PBS). This collapse, we are told by those in authority and proponents of the official line, was due to some moderate fires.

I will return to this point shortly, but might I just draw the attention of anyone who believes the rather provocative title of this thread to be true to the following information before I make the crux of my argument plain:


In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

www.wtc7.net...


Now it is obvious that this building was in itself NOT identical to building 7 - however I feel the above citation to be relevant as an illustration of the principle that it is unlikely in the extreme that even jet fuel (of which there was NONE in the case of WTC7, hence my choice of 7 as the critical illustration of my argument thereby eliminating the complicating factor of aircraft strikes) could have caused sufficient DIFFUSE AND WIDESPREAD weakening of the load bearing capacity of the WHOLE steel support structure for the building such that a SYMMETRICAL, VERTICAL, NEAR FREE-FALL COLLAPSE was the result.

This is to say nothing of the problem of the hundreds of tonnes of concrete and other materials that made up the remainder of the support structure of the building...

Just from watching the collapse in the masses of video footage taken on the day, it is clear that the SPONTANEOUS collapse, even if caused by the thermal weakening of the steel, would ALSO have required the SPONTANEOUS removal of the supportive characteristics of these other structural materials materials (ie. one moment ALL the concrete supporting the building along with the steel must have been sound in terms of its support characteristics, the next it provided LITTLE OR NO RESISTANCE to gravity). This removal would have had to have itself been SPONTANEOUS and SYMMETRICAL with respect to vertical planes of symmetry through the centre of the building, since the collapse appears to me to be at near freefall and initiates spontaneously with very little visible evidence of prior crumbling or weakening - and this is the biggest indication that explosives or high temperature shaped incendiary devices were used.

The theory that fires alone were the cause of this collapse to me seems simply untenable unless there was an ENORMOUS AND IMMEDIATE EXPENDITURE OF ENERGY to cause these spontaneous phenomena (explainable by the two kinds of devices mentioned at the end of the last paragraph), and in my estimation this would have to be of a magnitude that dwarfed the heat generated by fires in a few disparate and ASYMMETRICALLY DISTRIBUTED locations within the building - my own limited understanding of the thermodynamics of heat transfer and the mechanics of stress leads me to these assertions as being the best given the available evidence.

Of course this is to mention nothing of the other telltale characteristics of controlled demolition that are clearly visible on footage of the collapse of building 7 (The "crimp" in the middle of the building at the moment of the initiation of the collapse - again, SYMMETRICAL AND SPONTANEOUS - being the main one here for me).

Bear in mind also that the floors on which the fires occurred (housing, among others, the offices of the CIA, OEM, etc) were heavily over-engineered (as in fact were WTC1 and 2) - particularly, Rudy Giuliani's "command bunker" which I've variously read was bomb proof and designed to be resistant against any number of possible calamities, natural and unnatural. By the way, does anyone happen to have any details on the fire-suppression/retardant systems and measures they used in WT7 and why it didn't work? (that's no rhetorical question either guys - I'd genuinely like to know).

In closing I'd just like to say that if a few fires burning for several hours on a few seemingly randomly distributed floors of an overengineered, modern 40+ storey skyscraper are enough to bring it down so neatly, how have all these controlled demolition companies since 9/11 managed to prevent themselves going out of business? If that's all it takes to bring a building down that perfectly, all a person would have to do would be to set some fires, stand back and then call in the dump trucks while the dust settles!


I think that with all the debate going on over the twin towers and their collapse it is important to remember that WT7 is very much a part of the overall package - if it could conclusively be argued that WTC7 was a controlled demolition (which I believe is an easier proposition given the available information), we have every right to be taken seriously when we apply the same explanation to WTC's 1 &2, and would have far less to impede us in making our case and far more chance of general acceptance of that explanation.

I cordially invite you to speak to this argument, reallynobody and co., if you can.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 29-6-2006 by fulcanelli]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Reallynobody,
Try watching the film 911 eyewitness,watch the gaint smoke plumes coming from the ground floors and listen to explosion after explosion after explosion,well ater the planes have hit,backed up by earth quake meter readings...how did the planes do that then?
How did al qeada get norad to stand down?
Have you read PNAC?
What do you think of William Rodriguez eye witness statements?(wtc janitor)
Oh,love the way you dismissed building 7,very convincing.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join