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 Conspiracy:

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Has there been any other building in the world that has been stuck by a PRESENT DAY jetliner? NO, your B25 argument is bunk. So how can you compare it to something that’s never happened before. MIT Professor Thomas Eagar has cited the example of the McCormick Place Collapse as an example of the collapse of a steel-framed building induced by fire. (Source 911research.wtc7.net...) But guess what, those examples we’re dissected by you’re truth movement, same as your examples have been dissected by those that believe the official story. See, once again, you’re forgetting that for every piece of info you guys have, there’s someone on the other side that have their own info that counters that. Thus, why we haven’t gotten anywhere close to truth after 5 years, matter of fact, I believe we get farther from the truth each day that goes by. As I said in respect to 9-11, y’all have as much credibility as the gov’t, and y’all have just as many holes in your stories as the gov’t. So sorry I’m not gullible enough to buy either sides B.S. Can you deal with that?

You still haven't watched the films. There's plenty of well-documented and video-recorded examples of other buildings that have been hit and/or burned without collapsing.

Here we go again, would you like me to take a polygraph? What are you 14 years old? How many times do I have to say I’ve watched these lame ass videos, for you to get it? I provide examples of other buildings that have collapsed as a result of fire, your side screams that well the design is different, or it’s not a total collapse. It’s a never ending circle, for every piece of info you offer, someone else can offer a piece of info that counters it. Same thing, day after day. Probably why there’s so many damn threads about the same thing. I’ve seen the same debates over, and over and over again for the last 4 years. Hanging around the 9-11 section of this site makes me feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.

You love your country and that's admirable. But when it blinds you to the possibility that your government might kill people then it's also extremely dangerous.

Here we go again with your assumptions. First of all you obviously haven’t seen to many of my posts in other sections where I’ve basically said, “We the People” are expendable. So you’re preaching to the choir. But guess what else, jumping to conclusions about something that lacks real definitive evidence is also very dangerous. See The Salem Witch Trials. You’re blind to a little thing called reality.

These experts know a lot more about the subject than us so we should listen:

First of all those aren’t detailed backgrounds, but at some point today I’ll research these folks more. Once again and maybe you should actually READ this, for every expert you have, the gov’t has one to counter it. Try harder. Good god you actually listed Dr. Steven (Sponge in a bucket, I thought there was no WTC steel left, but I was wrong, but I’m not wrong about anything else) Jones.




posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
“Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well … Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September … He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.”

Wow old news, already knew about it, have known about it for years. It’s no secret the FBI screwed up some of the identities, they even admitted to it. But I suppose you look at that inconsistency as proof that supports you’re story. Speaking of inconsistency’s how’s that pod underneath the 767’s wing doing? See, you’re sides inconsistent too, same as the gov’t, does that mean everyone’s lying?

You do know of course that some of the sites you posted contradict each other, and some even call the “other” site disinfo. Once again, you’re movement couldn’t be any more splintered. Gee, I wonder why average people aren’t jumping on your bandwagon.

Aluminothermics...

Educate yourself here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Uhh so I should take you’re opinion as fact just cause it links to a page? That’s proof that thermite was used ehh? Either way, there no evidence of thermite being used, or even uber leet thermite, or Aluminothermics. You’re proof is sitting on a sponge. You really think any of this crap would be admissible in a courtroom? HAHA no way.

ONCE AGAIN KIDDIES, I HAVE AS MUCH REASON TO BELIEVE YOUR FAIRY TALES, AS MUCH AS I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENTS FAIRY TALES. KEEP POSTING LINKS, DO IT ALL DAY LONG, STILL HAS AS MANY HOLES AS THE GOV’T VERSION OF EVENTS. No freaking wonder the ‘truth movement’ has gone nowhere fast. I mean you people disrespect me for wanting the whole story. WTC 7 to me is a dead issue not matter what, your sides theory doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and neither does the govt’s. There is one thing known for sure, considering that WTC7 collapsed that day, it’s pretty safe to say that no actual investigation of the structural damaged caused by WTC1’s collapse was ever conducted. Once again, WTC7 collapsed the same day as WTC ½, you’re experts never entered the building and did a genuine study of possible damage to the structure, and guess what, neither did the gov’t. So keep holding it against me, that I’m not falling for either sides ASSUMPTIONS. A lot of the crap both sides use for evidence wouldn’t even be admissible in a courtroom, so excuse me for denying ignorance, keeping an open mind, and for using the same judgments against your side, as the govt’s.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   
The Empire State building is just one of many examples. I'll say it again, watch the video. Forget Empire State there are many other examples. One other obvious example is the Pentagon which was hit by an identical object and suffered only extremely minor damage and certainly did not vanish into its footprint like the twin towers and building 7. The Pentagon obeyed the laws of physics and only collapsed where the worst damage happened instead of collapsing symetrically.

We're supposed to believe that fire was the main factor in the collapses. Fire is very common. It never causes buildings to collapse, let alone symetrically. That is unique in the whole of history and has only ever happened to three buildings - and all the other buildings rigged with powerful explosives.

We were not there so let's ask some expert witnesses what happened - the experienced fire dept people who actually witnessed the demolition. They've seen plenty of fires and know that fire doesn't demolish buildings:

video.google.co.uk...

Let's remember the Pentagon was supposed to be struck by the same object that supposedly brought down the largest buildings in the world. It was hit by the same type of plane: same size, same weight, same speed, same amount of fuel. Strange. The Pentagon's still there but the twin towers and building 7 were symetrically demolished on the same day by exactly the same incident. What happened to all the fuel that would have spurted blazing into the pentagon? Why didn't it wreck the whole building? Either we're being lied to about the Pentagon or the twin towers plus building 7 or both.

I say both because the vast wings and huge engines of any 757 that hit the pentagon seem to have vanished. The initial hole was just large enough for the fusilage but what happened to the wings and engines?

0911.site.voila.fr...

Please note that eventually the holed section of wall caved in, giving the impression that the hole is larger. That's what you see in most photographs. Even the collapsed section was not big enough to accommodate the massive wings but again I urge you to watch the videos because they show the original hole before the collapse. There was one round hole. No holes at the sides for the engines. No slits at the sides for the wings. No wreckage of the gigantic wings wither. They vanished along with the massive, dense and heavy engines.

There's nothing far-out about 'thermite'. I've made it and used it myself and I've seen it used to cut steel supports. It works. It's extremely hot which is why they use it to melt steel - as opposed to aviation fuel which cannot even soften steel significantly. The steel in WTC was designed and tested to withstand 2000 degrees centigrade before failing and aviation fuel can't burn that hot even in perfect conditions. So what happened to the steel?

Note that there were none of the giant (and supposedly softened) steel supports in the wreckage of the towers - only shredded fragments precisely the right size to fit on the back of a lorry. They were cut which means either explosives or thermite or both. I suspect both: thermite to cut the steel then, seconds later, explosives to bring the structure down neatly. Watch the videos. What do you think happened to the steel supports? Did jet fuel magically melt them and cut them into sections - which is physically impossible? You're claiming the steel was only softened but it was shredded into hundreds of short sections of precisely the same convenient length.

Only a madman would talk of mini-nukes in relation to 9/11. (A madman or somebody spreading disinformation to discredit 9/11 suspicion generally.)

One of the experts, David Shayler, is a known former MI5 officer who was taken to court in Britain for telling the truth. He made:

officialconfusion.com...

[edit on 8-9-2006 by AchesonGroup]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Fools always refer to McCormick Place because they are desperate. This is foolish because it did not - repeat DID NOT collapse. The roof fell in, that's all.

Here is a photo showing the building after the fire. Other than the roof - which you can still see - it's intact:

911research.wtc7.net...

The roof collapsed. The building did not demolish itself like the twin towers and building 7 because that's physically impossible unless you rig a building with explosives.

Why do you compare a building that had its roof damaged to a building that symetrically and completely demolishes itself? Because you have no option - because - demolitions aside - the 9/11 self-demolitions were unique in history - because total symetrical self-demolition is physically impossible without explosives and/or 'thermite'.

Concrete and steel do not shred into dust and short sections unless you blast them and/or cut the steel with thermite.

People who claim the official propaganda is true always struggle to find evidence - because there is absolutely none whatsoever. Because the official story is physically impossible and full of gaping holes - unlike the pentagon wall which had two missing holes and two missing gashes where we are told two big heavy engines, two wings spanning 125 FEET and a tail of 44.5 FEET struck at enormous speed:

0911.site.voila.fr...

The official story has been debunked and ridiculed thoroughly by hundreds of experts in aviation, demolition, engineering, physics, etc., etc... and in any case you only need eyes to see that no engines, tail or wings hit the pentagon.

Accept it: you were misled. We are all human and at first many of us were misled too. What's important is that now you have the facts, you cannot take this hideous crime lying down.


[edit on 8-9-2006 by AchesonGroup]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by WithoutEqual
You’re proof is sitting on a sponge. You really think any of this crap would be admissible in a courtroom? HAHA no way.


Your post is factually incorrect for many reasons includiong this one. I will not address the rest of you innaccurate, line towing tirade of drivel.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by WithoutEqual
ONCE AGAIN KIDDIES, I HAVE AS MUCH REASON TO BELIEVE YOUR FAIRY TALES, AS MUCH AS I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENTS FAIRY TALES. KEEP POSTING LINKS, DO IT ALL DAY LONG, STILL HAS AS MANY HOLES AS THE GOV’T VERSION OF EVENTS.


The gov't version should have NO HOLES... we are working from very limitied budgets, evidence and resources. Your compairison only strenghtens our case as you firmly admit the gov't story is bunk.

That is ALL WE ARE TRYING TO DO... No Alternative theory will be proven until...

1. The gov't story is widely disbelieved.
2. The evidence is released.
3. a Full and impartial investigation occurs.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Eye witnesses including the experienced fire & rescue personnel at the twin towers reported multiple explosions and demolition.

The leaseholder of the complex, Larry Silverstein, is on record as having authorised the demolition:

video.google.co.uk...

He had just secured an insurance deal specifically paying out for terrorist attacks, making the disaster very valuable to him personally. Incidentally he was also a big supporter and fundraiser for Israel according to the Jerusalem Post:

pqasb.pqarchiver.com...:902923581&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT

If you showed a court of law a photograph showing the pentagon damage with a 757 superimposed to scale they would conclude the obvious - that something else must have done it:

0911.site.voila.fr...

But that's not going to happen. There will never be a proper investigation.

Remember that these people are so confident in YOUR inability to see the obvious or do anything about it that they barely bothered to cover their tracks. Think about that. Think about it long and hard.


[edit on 8-9-2006 by AchesonGroup]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   
McCormick Place Did NOT Collapse

Fools always refer to McCormick Place because they are desperate. This is foolish because it did not - repeat DID NOT collapse. The roof fell in, that's all.

So now I’m a fool? I mean jesus dude, I EVEN SAID THAT to show you guys, that for every piece of information you have, the opposition has one to counter it which is why this 9-11 deal isn’t getting anywhere anytime soon. How many times do I have to tell you lemmings, I’m not on a side. Ovbiously you didn’t read my post at all.

People who claim the official propaganda is true always struggle to find evidence - because there is absolutely none whatsoever.

Good for them. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU I DON’T BELIEVE AND HAVE NEVER SAID THE OFFICIAL STORY IS TRUE. If your little rabid butt wasn’t so blatantly politically motivated you would have noticed that. Just cause I don’t buy your line of crap buddy, doesn’t mean I buy theirs either. Deal with it, I’m holding you to the same standard as the rest of the people including the gov’t. That’s life, deal with it.

The official story has been debunked and ridiculed thoroughly by hundreds of experts in aviation, demolition, engineering, physics, etc., etc... and in any case you only need eyes to see that no engines, tail or wings hit the pentagon.

Accept it: you were misled. We are all human and at first many of us were misled too. What's important is that now you have the facts, you cannot take this hideous crime lying down.

The debunking has gone both ways, and once again, for everyone of your experts they have one too. I’m not debating if a doughnut hit the pentagon, or if a in and out burger hit the pentagon. Can you prove what hit it? No. Will you ever be able to? No. So what’s the point? How is this going to help us take down the people responsible? It’s not.

How am I mislead? Because I think a lot of the CTers theories and the gov’t theories are all B.S.? At least that makes me objective wouldn’t you say? Save your hate speech for the folks to do eat up everything they’re fed, cause I’m not one of them, despite your psychic predictions.

Your post is factually incorrect for many reasons includiong this one. I will not address the rest of you innaccurate, line towing tirade of drivel.

Lets see if one of you guys can directly answer a question for once. Exactly what line am I towing? Did I said I backed up and supported any of the evidence I posted? NO, what I’m pointing out, if you and the rest of the lynch mob can lower your torches for a second, is that for every expert you have, the gov’t has one, for every theory you have, the gov’t has one, on and on and on. To prove a crime was indeed commited on 9-11 it’s going to take a courtroom ‘level’ of evidence to get it done. These videos won’t cut it, and most of these experts wouldn’t cut it, ON BOTH SIDES. Don’t hate me for it, hate the legal system. If you so passionately believe those videos hold all the answers, then take it to a Federal Prosecutor, have him review it, and see if it’s enough to start a case. I know it’s not, but I’d love to see what kind of reaction you’d get. Study criminal court cases, cause that’s the only way anyone can ‘prove’ anything these days. I have a upcoming post of dialog between Jak and I over this very matter.

1. The gov't story is widely disbelieved.
2. The evidence is released.
3. a Full and impartial investigation occurs.

Never happened with JFK, why in the heck would it happen now? It’s not going to, I understand the point of your post, about us not having the resources the gov’t has, well you’re right. But that doesn’t mean we can’t, or shouldn’t start building a case with lawyers guiding us along the way, cause y’all can call me names and everything else, but after one look at all these 9-11 threads any attorney will tell you, you don’t have a case, most of it wouldn’t even be admissible, and for you to be taken seriously, you’d have to follow a legal approach. Once again this isn’t my fault, it’s how the system works.

Witnesses

Eye witnesses including the experienced fire & rescue personnel at the twin towers reported multiple explosions and demolition.

We have eyewitnesses that claim they say an airliner hit the Pentagon. You make it sound as if a plane didn’t strike the Pentagon. So I’m asking you now, why is it your side wants me to believe SOME of the eyewitness testimony, and ignore other eyewitness testimony? You can’t have it both ways friend, you just can’t. And the gov’t isn’t any better, they’ll call some of your eyewitness testimony false, and put up one of their eye witnesses to counter yours. THUS WELCOME TO THE NEVER ENDING REVOLVING DOOR CALLED 9-11.

You guys are trying to have a Salem Witch Hunt with me, one problem, there arn't any witches around.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I think we've successfully answered and countered every erroneous argument you've made, Mr. WithoutEqual.

Now you say that you raised the McCormick nonsense, "to show you guys, that for every piece of information you have, the opposition has one to counter it" - but as usual the opposition is talking nonsense, ignoring facts, history and the laws of physics. Part of the roof fell in.

When gentlemen like yourself and even MIT Professor Thomas Eagar (who REALLY should no better) say that the towers could have collapsed symetrically and in freefall - and support this claim by saying a vaguely similar building had a fire and some of the roof fell in, it just illustrates that:

1) Those wishing to support the official explanation are desperate and even experts have to resort to nonsensical, erroneous and completely inapplicable evidence.

2) These people must have other reasons for their belief that the towers were not demolished because they must know the evidence they use to support their claims is a farce.

The twin towers and building 7 did not lose a section of roof. They were reduced to demolition rubble. In fact much of the buildings was reduced to very fine powder indicating high explosives. And not even God can put a 757 into the wall of the Pentagon and make the engines and wings vanish just before impact so that they make no holes and leave no trace.

You say you don't believe the official story is true but you are obviously prepared to take the evidence of liars like Professor Eager who know you can't compare a piece of roof falling down to one of man's largest ever concrete and steel constructions being reduced to dust and small, truck-sized sections of neatly sliced steel. You clearly have not examined the evidence for yourself because you don't need to go to MIT to see that the evidence dissolves upon the mildest scrutiny even of an amateur. So you will forgive me for assuming you must be biased. (I refuse to accept that you are incapable of common sense so you cannot possibly have examined the evidence for yourself.)

The debunking does not go both ways and again McCormick illustrates this. I'm not aware that anybody has debunked the fact that the towers were demolished. People like yourself and Prof Eager claim that a building's roof partially collapsing in a fire is a precedent for a giant building of concrete and steel collapsing symetrically and in freefall and being blasted into powder in the process.

I have no hate speech and I have no political agenda. I don't think you've actually been reading my text properly.

Yes, for every expert we have, the government has one like our friend the good professor spouting rubbish that a child can see is not applicable. It's like saying that a monkey breaking a small piece of wood in his cage proves or offers a precedent to show that king kong could genuinely come to NYC and smash the Empire State Building with his fists. This kind of nonsense is not scientific but it's all the other side has because the truth has facts, science and history on its side.

What line are you towing, you ask? For one thing you're towing the line above. You tow the line that McCormick somehow proves the WTC collapse is physically possible. You confidently reiterate the nonsense of Professor Eager just as many others confidently reiterate the nonsense of him and other experts and even the government, - whose president even says he witnessed the first plane striking the tower:

www.youtube.com...

No footage of impact one had been seen by anybody at that point. (A conspiracy theorist might suggest he saw the footage taken by the Israeli agents who were laughing and filming.)

There is no witch-hunt. I just find it amazing that an intelligent person can cite McCormick as a precedent and reiterate all the other lies we've been told about 9/11 when they've all been thoroughly debunked. Nobody has debunked the fact that it was a demolition.

[edit on 8-9-2006 by AchesonGroup]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
You're ovbiously missing the point of my post. Good luck with your 'mission' just understand that with the mentaility you're approaching this with you won't get any further than changing minds on sites like this. Mission failed, and it's not even completed yet. That's it, you will not convince a majority of 'mainstream' America that you're theory/theories are correct. That's reality. I'm not sure if you're having visions or what here pal, but I don't think you understand what my argument really is. I'm not arguing that your theory is wrong, or if the gov'ts theory is wrong, my argument is, 9-11 will have the same fate as JFK, untill people pull their heads from their butts and start realizing how the world outside of their little circle works.

I promise you, and I have the JFK murder to back me up on this, that at the rate y'all are going, that in 5 years, 10 years, 20, years, and 40 years later, the same pointless arguments will be debated, and redebated time after time, just like JFK, and people will reach the same conclusions on sites like this, over and over again. Does it count in the real world? Nope. If you want "justice" you won't get it this way, that's why there will never be 'justice' in the JFK case.

This applies to just about everything in life, if you want to beat the bad guys, you have to work harder than they do, you have to surpass them at every single step along the way. You can't just copy them, post some quotes, and run off into the night.

The 9-11 movement needs a central figure to bring everything together, and needs a PR coach bad, if you ever want to convice the 'generic' public of what really happend, your way won't cut it, it's going to take a hell of alot more than that ect.

As I said, if you're so confident that you're 'evidence' is that solid, then you and I can find a Federal Prosecutor that isn't a Bush cronie, and present your case along with you're evidence. One I'd like to witness it for the simple fact that you'll find out very quickly how much of your evidence couldn't be used. And I'll even use my 'vet' status as leverage to get the ball rolling. But you better make sure all your ducks are in a row, otherwise they'll chew you up, and spit you out. Think about it, if Operation Northwoods is your idea of proof, you need to understand that in no way could it ever be admissable in a courtroom.

Why in the world do we want to debate an issue that wouldn't hold up in court? As far as I'm concenred debating things of that nature, helps the gov't more than it hurts it, cause while we're debating all the things that don't matter, we arn't paying attention, or investagating the things that do.

Enjoy your 'movement' and although I'd hate to see it, I know in 5 years if I come to this site, I'll see the same exact threads, and guess what, the bad guys will walk. Congrats!



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Thanks for your opinion WithoutEqual. I agree on one point: I "will not convince a majority of 'mainstream' America" - that's because just as the vast majority of ordinary people here in the UK get their opinions from The Sun, which is owned by Zionist Rupert Murdoch, while the educated classes get their news from The Times, which is also owned by Zionist Rupert Murdoch, over in the US most people get their news from Fox, which has taken over from CNN as the most popular news network. Needless to say, Fox is also owned by Zionist Rupert Murdoch as are most major news outlets.

Since 9/11 engineered the consent of the American people to attack Israel's enemies, the Taliban, Saddam's government - and perhaps soon Iran - it is easy to see how 9/11 was of enormous benefit to Israel and hence to the Zionist movement which is why those Mossad agents filming the first plane striking the tower were so jubilant.

And in the process The US government - led by top oil people like Bush, Cheney and Rice (who Exxon once named a tanker after) got to build the Caspian Sea oil pipeline through Afghanistan and then sieze control of some of the world's largest, cheapest to access, and easiest to access oil reserves - those of Iraq & perhaps soon Iran.

I wonder if the current military escalation in Afghanistan (they're asking for a lot more troops all of a sudden after 5 years) will spill over the border into Iran? On the other side of Iran we also have Iraq of course. And troop levels there have steadily been increasing too and there is evidence they will continue to increase:

Afghanistan: "Nato's leaders have urged member countries to provide reinforcements"
news.bbc.co.uk...

Afghanistan: "an option to consider is to reinforce the troops immediately with at least three battalions"
news.bbc.co.uk...

Iraq: "U.S. commanders have increased U.S. troop levels by about 13,000 over the past five weeks"
www.cbsnews.com...

All of a sudden we need more troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan - both of which border with Iran. And tensions with Iran are being escalated through Iran's support of Hezbolla in Lebanon and of course the Iranian nuclear programme - which they are legally entitled to if they don't build weapons.

What do you think it would take for the US public to accept an invasion of Iran? Another 9/11? An Iranian-backed attack against peacekeepers in Lebanon or against Israel? A skirmish/incident on the Iran/Afghanistan or Iran/Iraq border? One could speculate endlessly. But we can be fairly certain that Iran is going to be attacked by Israel and/or her Western allies at some point. What worries me is how it will be justified because the Afghanistan and to some extent Iraq invasions were justified by 9/11.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
On September 11 this year my thoughts were with the families who are still calling for a full independent inquiry to include how building 7 self-demolished and how aviation fuel melted steel into glowing molten cascades in the twin towers.

There should also be a proper inquiry into the Pentagon collision - even though the building damage obeyed the laws of physics and the principles of engineering (unlike the twin towers and building 7 which self-demolished.)

Two large, heavy, dense engines can't just disappear, they would have made twin holes either side of the single small hole supposedly made by the fusilage if they had hit the Pentagon. Therefore they obviously didn't hit the Pentagon therefore something else must have. (Quite apart from the fact that an elite pilot could not have hit the building so accurately without striking the ground first, let alone one who was failing in flight school.)

video.google.co.uk...

You need to watch the video above and explode the myths for yourself because for some reason this footage never made it onto your TV...




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join