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: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I swear its like people watched the OJ simpson case and applied it to 9/11. Everything is just one more "coincidence". If a whistleblower got murdered, they found the gun inside a mans home, fingerprints on the gun, ballistics show the gun was used to kill the president, the man is caught on tape leaving the scene of the crime, these people would cry coincidence so long as they guy that killed them was part of the government.




posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
i can't believe you spent the time to type 8 or 9 irrational explanations to 9/11. you're looking down a long tunnel for something that lives in darkness, so your happy considering shadows for earthly night. it's ok. when the darkness finally falls on everyone, globally, you can then reconsider your stance as the 9/11 events only affecting the US. it was a global event who's after shock has been felt in almost every airport around the world, for starters.
nothing in any one of your "counter claims" sheds any light on the evasive truth in this matter. at best, you further blur and already convuluted pile of facts. you're talking about passports and jewelery, videotapes and heresay and media. you can't expect prime rib when you're happy being handfed kibbles and bits, friend. look at the bigger picture of what nations were said to be involved. look even further into which countries have benefited from 9/11. so far, we've just spent spent and spent money while countries like suadi arabia (alleged home to some of the terrorists) is thriving, economically. this is only thing you need to consider.
Consider how exxon mobil and shell oils made record profits.
or, continue to bicker about the fire tolerance of building parts.
keep focusing on the distractions as you chase your tail.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
come on. how can anyone with a brain honestly support dylan avery.

the guy's a lunatic- he says bush was after 160 billion in gold bars and that the planes never crash landed, they actually came down safely in a field.

but hey if you want to support the theory that bush is a money crazed leprachaun that's cool. and while you're at it how about we start denying that the halocaust ever happened.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

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]


actually it makes perfect sense.


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.


thats what was meant. Reallynobody has a popular thread going, and even though he has said so much, he claims that no one has answered his three questions. three invalid questions.

Nobody said chenney flew those plains into the towers, which obviously were real, just unclear weather they were the planes they said they were, and why there was extra euipment of some kind attached to the hull of the planes, as well as the strange flash that came from both these extra pieces of equipment the split second before impact.

why couldn't a few key government characters make contact with a talented but otherwise lonely special ops agent, who uses his contact and resources to make sure that terrorist do attack those buildings. not everyone in the government has to be involved. just enough to make good on promises to those that actually did it.

I'll beat U to it Mr. Roark... I HAVE NO EVIDENCE (so no need to report anything) but you know how i came up with that? I thought like a money hungry politian who knows there is no money in politics and has all the resources he needs to make his dreams come true.

Why is it so hard to believe that this could happen, did you not have a history class in your highschool or what ever eductional institute you attended. the world is messed up place, we just forgot that why we were all busy racking up are credit cards and making money on the stock exchange.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by new coterie rotary
come on. how can anyone with a brain honestly support dylan avery.

the guy's a lunatic- he says bush was after 160 billion in gold bars and that the planes never crash landed, they actually came down safely in a field.

but hey if you want to support the theory that bush is a money crazed leprachaun that's cool. and while you're at it how about we start denying that the halocaust ever happened.


Please direct me to where Dylan Avery was mentioned in this thread, as I've not been able to find reference to him other than yours quoted above.

IMHO Dylan Avery's films serve to illustrate several points discussed here fairly well but are, unfortunately, flawed in a few ways that detract from their overall credibility (I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere).

This could either be an indication of ignorance on his part or of deliberate obfuscation due to his having been compromised somehow, but ultimately it matters little here and would be fruitless to discuss. Neither Dylan Avery nor anyone else considered the current darlings of the "truth movement" can claim to have the whole truth and nothing but, and I believe that the known information speaks loudly enough for itself to make the case at least that the official report is neither exhaustive nor a fully accurate account of what happened, without having to resort to involving the works of Avery or Jones or anyone else in this discussion.

As for lumping holocaust deniers along with people that believe Bush and co. (merely the visible tip of a very large and ugly iceberg, I believe) to be culpable of the events of 9/11 well, that's just silly. But you knew that, didn't you?


Really



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I'll humor the doubters over WTC 1 and 2 and the Pentagon for a short while - Let them have that virtual victory.

Come on you doubters, let's talk about the hard core issue you avoided in your opening thesis!

Building 7 (WTC7) and it's vertical collapse in onto it's own foot print the afternoon of 9-11!!!!!

It was not hit by any aircraft, (building 6 protected it from damage) and only had two small fires that fire fighters called "modest".

Don't bother opening the "9-11 Commission Report" to find your answers, because they (un-Kean commission) didn't even cover the topic for obvious reasons!

Go dig your heels into the saved video of the WTC7 collapse at www.wtc7.net... for an hour or so.... Then come back here and share with us all why you think the main stream media hesitates to cover the WTC7 collapse infomation now days in the same way the un-Kean commission have done in their past report.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by kissinger]

[edit on 29-6-2006 by kissinger]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kissinger
I'll humor the doubters over WTC 1 and 2 and the Pentagon for a short while - Let them have that virtual victory.

Come on you doubters, let's talk about the hard core issue you avoided in your opening thesis!

Go dig your heels into the saved video of the WTC7 collapse at www.wtc7.net... for an hour or so.... Then come back and please share with us why you think the main stream media hesitates cover the WTC7 collapse in the same fashion that the un-Kean commission did.


Another voice of reason in the cacophany of variously directionless, baseless, and specious arguments! Well said that man!

I've already voiced my argument on building 7 on this thread (post id: 2308820). I have more, but I would be deeply grateful if those here so certain in the belief expressed in the title here could speak to what has already been presented on building 7.

I retire now wearily with a wry smile in anticipation of the hilarity that is likely to ensue here tomorrow


G'night all


PS: BUILDING 7! BUILDING 7! BUILDING 7! BUILDING 7!



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by fulcanelli
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.


No doubt 7 presents some damming evidence, conditions and circumstance. Not being a public building means our interest can be seen as "limited". It is, as you say a "crucial deciding factor", but not for authority, for us citizens. We will only have reason to work with, let us do it well.


Originally posted by fulcanelliThis 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...


We have no legal standing to even discover what the exact design of 7 was. As a privately owned structure there is no obligation by anyone to provide any information.


Originally posted by fulcanelliJust 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).


From what I've learned it was an all steel highrise that had undergone massive remodeling on a number of floors. Meaning that thermite could have been placed that removed large sections of columns. Limited high explosives were used there, mostly thermite. Qualities of molten steel were noted in the basement of 7 also.


Originally posted by fulcanelliIn 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!



Building 7, not hit by a plane, falling like a curtain on a theatre of ritual sacrifice instilling fear in the masses.




posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kissinger

Building 7 (WTC7) and it's vertical collapse in onto it's own foot print the afternoon of 9-11!!!!!

It was not hit by any aircraft, (building 6 protected it from damage) and only had two small fires that fire fighters called "modest".




Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years


A little north of Vesey I said, we'll go down, let's see what's going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
#7s collapse was expected for hours.

There was nothing at all sudden about it.

From the first visible signs of beginning collapse to it hitting the ground was over 30 secs.

Sorry if that doesn't fit all your fantasies.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Well that's crap. Even if one corner of the building was blown out, unless every other corner was blown out at the same time, that building wouldn't have fallen that evenly. Building 7 is what blows the whole thing out of the water. Theres even recording of the owner saying pull it before it goes down.

Asking anyone to believe this bs is like asking someone to believe that everything in Iraq is hunky-dory, and that Gtmo is a humane facility, and that Iran is developing nukular energy to power their homes.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Something that seems so easy to explain away in here, but was unexplainable in the original FEMA report on WT7, then later not even covered at all in the un-Kean '9-11 Commission Report' smacks of intrigue.

Any idea why both aforementioned official reports didn't come to your conclusion as well?

I guess seeing is believing... Has anyone got a link to images or video footage of this so called "20 story hole" please?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Well that's crap. Even if one corner of the building was blown out, unless every other corner was blown out at the same time, that building wouldn't have fallen that evenly. Building 7 is what blows the whole thing out of the water. Theres even recording of the owner saying pull it before it goes down.

Asking anyone to believe this bs is like asking someone to believe that everything in Iraq is hunky-dory, and that Gtmo is a humane facility, and that Iran is developing nukular energy to power their homes.


Sure it would have fallen straight down.

Gravity It's not just a good idea, It's the LAW!



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Seeing is still believing... Has anyone got a link to images or video footage of this so called "20 story hole" in the middle of WTC7 please



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Dude, you're not even trying.

I now get it. Howard knows that the buildings came down through controlled demo. He knows that it had to be internal. He chooses, whether subconciously or conciously, to maintain his original arguement because

a) he's invested too much time, energy and pride into his arguement. To concede would be to lose his entire standing on ATS. Or at least he believes so.

or

b) He's invested so much trust and devotion into a symbol of what he thinks his country is, that anyone who takes control of that country, through whatever means receives his total loyalty and devotion.

Whater it may be, he's realized that very little can be argued in favor of the official story.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
hmmm....someone i know was telling me that the government planned the 9/11 attacks because theyve been wanting to build something better there for a long time and that was a way to get rid of it. idk about that theory though.....



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   
While the other side is quoting fire fighters, can you please share a few of their other pieces of information that they also speak of along the lines of: 'Bombs going off'...'The fires are almost out'...'Small pockets of controllable fire' etc. etc.?

But first before doing that, I'm still very very excited to see images or video of the '20 story high' hole in the WTC7 building you must have.

Have you got any links to images or video to this physical evidence please?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
After WTC 1 collapse, they cleared all non essential emergency personell out of the area.

I'm sure even a super genius like you can understand that the firemen had more important things to do then to take pictures.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
So what you are saying is that you have no visual proof at all that a "20 story hole" was in the middle of WTC7, is that right?

Your suggestion that only fire fighters would have been the ones able to take photo's, had they had the time puzzles me.

How can you be so conclusive on that. Could not others such as the public, media, etc. on the ground, in the air, up in other building possibly have caught a shot of that HUGE hole, in the most photographed event to ever happen in America?

Anyone else have links of video footage of the '20 story high" hole in the WTC7 from September 11, 2001, before it collapsed please?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kissinger
How can you be so conclusive on that. Could not others such as the public, media, etc. on the ground, in the air, up in other building possibly have caught a shot of that HUGE hole, in the most photographed event to ever happen in America?


How could they? Planes and helicopters were grounded, all civilians were moved away from the collapse zone. They wer fighting a number of fires. The smoke obscured the scene.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join