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.

 

New Video: 9/11 Mysteries

page: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Are you ready to be bent? Go down the rabbit hole take a left then go 3 tunnels down and open the door. Whats behind the door you ask? I can only show you the door whats behind it is for you, if you want it. Do you want it? Oh and theres no way out because you can only go forward... Forever. FREE YOUR M I N D.




posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Where's Howard Roark on all this? I just can't wait to hear his laughable opinions on these issues.

Seriously though. In 1933 Hitler Burned down the Reichstag. And afterwards he subverted the Constitution and set up a police state. When history repeats itself we have to ask ourselves. When History repeats do we notice?



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
for anyone interested the current streaming loop from alex jones infowars site includes the verbal asskicking alex and a professor gave some debunker lawyer. During the dialogue, the professors relates to the the audience and our neo-con disinformation lawyer how hes been in correspondance with one of the main guys who designed the WTC towers and he;s repeatedly said that the buildings were overbuilt and could easily withstand much much more than was done to it. His claims are backed up (i should mention, non-bought/scared off) engineers and physicists who all have not only one but a number of reasons simply using the laws of physics and the known properties of the buildings and planes and such and all state unequivocably that it is an impossibility that either the planes and/or in combination with those fires to have collapsed the buildings. On the other hand, you have a trillion page 9/11 official book that has been shown to ignore or use misrepresented data that shows nothing more than what boloney science is. Not to mention the people who ordered the wreckage (read evidence) taken away, stil withold more evidence, chance "official stories" and to this day have not delivered on any promises of building at ground zero. Given these two alternatives, i'll go with the scholars for 9/11 truth. In fact i;d double down on something like this.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Well done video. I couldn't but say FU Bush out loud. God, he's such a pile of crap. Why is he not pushing for the truth on this situation? He's either involved or he's a scared puppet. Did anyone else here get pissed off at Bush watching this vid? It's like America gets dismantled, and he's still got his slimy ass in the president's seat?

Where's the justice? We've got robbers in jail doing a long sentence, and nothing happens to Bush, yet this is a mass murder.


Troy



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Thichheaded,

That prisonplanet article is talking about a different site.

Dubunking 911 is not 911 myths



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   
I took a break from studying DNS and I watched the video.
All I can say is this I was impressed by the video and there are enough major questions that need to be answered to ensure the videos crediablity. IMO logic reasoning can answer some of the more minor questions for example after the towers had collapsed its not unreasonable to have people expect that other buildings will fall.

why couldnt have the impact of the plane crashing into the building cause windows to break on lower floors ?

The destruction of the lower basement floors and the smoke rising from the ground are the most telling things that stand out for me personally. People are to busy with there lives to take a closer look at the events of 9-11 hopefuly videos like this will change this fact.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
why couldnt have the impact of the plane crashing into the building cause windows to break on lower floors ?


Because they didn't even bust all the windows on the impacted floors. The fireballs knocked a lot out, but that was about it. It was allagedly a fireball that traveled down at least one elevator, and hit both the lobby and the basements AND set someone on fire IN an elevator. Considering only one elevator in each building went the whole distance up and down... something isn't right.

But for the impacts alone, the trusses provided a lot of "cushioning" from lateral forces on the buildings, and there were rubber dampers, etc., so significant impact force wouldn't be transferred through the entire buildings.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
The video was done well. Too bad it is full of lies and half truths designed to make you believe that litereally thousands of people, in the government AND the military, were somehow behind the towers falling.

There is little similarity between a 707 flying around "lost in the fog" at a low speed on approach (the scenareo assumed by the engineers) and a 767 flying at 450 MPH. In fact; the destructive difference is huge. I stopped watching the rediculous thing when that guy tried to assign equivalency between a pencil being pushed through a bug screen and a heavily-loaded jet (whose profile is NOTHING like a pencil) crashing into a buidling.

I'm certain, however, that those who seem to automatically be cocked to believe anything anti-Bush administration would see legitmacy in trash like this.

I've said this before: If I found it so easy and reasonable to believe that my government was behind the attacks I would denounce my citizenship and move to another country. My question to those who believe this crap is: Why are you still here?



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
The video was done well. Too bad it is full of lies and half truths designed to make you believe that litereally thousands of people, in the government AND the military, were somehow behind the towers falling.


Isn't that what our government is spinning us to believe? All of Al Qeauda, thousands of terrorists, were all in someway behind it, right?


There is little similarity between a 707 flying around "lost in the fog" at a low speed on approach (the scenareo assumed by the engineers) and a 767 flying at 450 MPH. In fact; the destructive difference is huge.


Sure, but thats still a moot point. The planes didnt do enough damage to cause a complete lateral pancake collapse, that was the point. Even the NIST concludes that it would be impossible for a plane to physically do it, they claim it was the fire.


I stopped watching the rediculous thing when that guy tried to assign equivalency between a pencil being pushed through a bug screen and a heavily-loaded jet (whose profile is NOTHING like a pencil) crashing into a buidling.


That "guy" was one of the lead architects of the building. And actually yes, the plane does have a similar profile like a building. Especially if were to believe the pentagon impact was a plane, since the wings would shred up immediately after impact, which would mean all you would have is the fuselage ramming through, likea pencil.



[edit on 9-24-2006 by WolfofWar]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum


I've said this before: If I found it so easy and reasonable to believe that my government was behind the attacks I would denounce my citizenship and move to another country. My question to those who believe this crap is: Why are you still here?


While the question is not directed to me, I'd like to at least have a shot at guessing why they are still here.

Maybe they're just waiting out all of those who will abandon their country at the first sign of adversity that would require real action on the part of the citizenry. Just think of the real estate they'll have available once everyone with your voiced lack of commitment gets the hell out of dodge.

That's my best guess.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I've said this before: If I found it so easy and reasonable to believe that my government was behind the attacks I would denounce my citizenship and move to another country. My question to those who believe this crap is: Why are you still here?


What's scary is that if enough of us become active in getting the proper change, we won't have to move. That's what nice about a democracy.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I have not been able to watch all of the moive, that being said, I will only comment on what I have seen.

While I am an avaid supporter of "the official story just doesn't cut it", I do adamantly agree with these two comments:


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
There is little similarity between a 707 flying around "lost in the fog" at a low speed on approacht

I wholly agree with this for two reasons, that I see:

[1] In any accident, speed (inertia) is directly expressed in the results of the crash. What is low speed for a 707 in the fog - 170 - 225? What was the 767 doing - 450 - 500? That's a gain of 225 -275 ............... that's a LOT of inertia.

[2] The speed is also related to the impact results in the material of the impacted structure. The 707 hit concrete, the 767 a steel framework.


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
tried to assign equivalency between a pencil being pushed through a bug screen and a heavily-loaded jet (whose profile is NOTHING like a pencil) crashing into a buidling.

A lot of things wrong in that one:
-- The screen would have to be, as above, a framework of screen. His jet, the pencil, protruded only one outer grid of the frame
-- His jet, the pencil, is wholly a solid structure, a jet is not.
-- While many dismiss wings as being litte impact towards crash results (they're hollow frames, they break off, etc), these are still, none the less, structural metal work just as the fuselage; moreso, they are not hollow, they are the fuel tanks, one can easily see how the wings may actually be more of a solid object of an aircraft, they are filled (+/-) with liquid, the fuselage is people and chairs and bags with open area all about. Wings contribute much to a crash result. The pencil jet had no wings.
-- I am sure there are several more, this was just top of my head when I viewed it.

Misfit



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
That's exactly what he said. A plane running out of fuel. The video says it too. I guess agree to disagree.


then quote him on it and tell me where you saw it. I saw it nowhere, I quoted both times when he was speaking, you have yet to quote anything.



So, even though it's factually correct, it's not a credible source?

O K


for furture reference when your trying to prove a point, thats exactly what I am saying. My own personal website could be 100% true, that doesn't make it credible at all.



Actually that's exactly what your saying when you say DeMartini was correct, they can't both be right.


you have got to be kidding me. You must not be listening to what they are saying at all. Not surprising since you are hearing "we prepared for low fuel inpact" when he actually said "we were not in charge of preparing for the damage the fuel explosion would cause. That was not our job."
so I shouldn't be surprised when you cant understand how they are both saying the same thing, just DeMartini personally believes that it could withstand more then one. Robertson never said anything about more then one, one way or the other. You are making it seem as though they are contradicting eachother, but you just don't understand what they are saying then and must have a comprehension problem.



And it looks like they were both wrong about the building being able to take hits from Airplanes.


well thats whats under debate, now isn't it.



Much like the people who built the "unsinkable" titanic. Or should we only believe the people who said the titanic was unsinkable and then conclude that it was bombs planted by the gubmint that sunk the titanic.


hey if you have a provable theory that a bomb was actually on the ship, be my guest and provide all the evidence. Until that happens, well I guess the official story is the only one around.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

hey if you have a provable theory that a bomb was actually on the ship, be my guest and provide all the evidence. Until that happens, well I guess the official story is the only one around.


Does the same hold true for 9-11 then?

Demartini and Robertson are essentially saying the same thing as the people who said the titanic was unsinkable. I'm sure it looked great on paper, but Robertson can't even find the paper, and we all know that the real world destroys many things that look good on paper.

It seems to me most people around here are more interested in attacking the official story without providing any altenate theory at all.

It reminds me of people who try to prove creation by attacking evolution, and accomplishes about as much.



[edit on 24-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
left behind if you can provide an alternate story for what happen when the titanic sunk, or can show multiple gaps in the "facts" of what happen, then I would be all ears, just link me to the thread you start.

I think that just because I dont have a set theory on what happened, doesn't mean I should believe the official story. Im sorry if Im the only person who believes it OK to say "I dont know" when it comes to what happen. Yes I dont believe the official story, no I dont know what happened, and yes that is OK.

I dont need to have a theory in order to find problems with the official theory, just like the others dont need a theory in order to find problems with whatever theory another person has. Im looking at it objectively because I have no theory to prove. I dont know what happen that day, I do know that the official story sounds like BS, so Im going to look into it of course. I find problems with it, but that doesn't mean I have some theory of mine own to push.

about the robertson thing, its all opinions when it came to the both of them. They both gave there opinion and what they thought. Nothing is fact if you want to look at it that way. NIST could say there was no way explosives could have been in there on paper, but thats just their opinion by your way of thinking.

These guys were architechs and part of the WTC construction, Demartini was part of up to date construction, robertson was part of original construction. Both of them know what they are talking about building wise. I take their opinion over most average joes.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Maybe they're just waiting out all of those who will abandon their country at the first sign of adversity that would require real action on the part of the citizenry. Just think of the real estate they'll have available once everyone with your voiced lack of commitment gets the hell out of dodge.

That's my best guess.


First; this isn't a "first sign of adversity" as you put it. The conspiracies surrounding 911 are comprehensive and extensive; including the notion that those weren't airplanes that struck the Pentagon/WTC; bur rather they were either missiles, or military planes made to look like airliners being flown remotely. Or, that explosives were placed in the WTC to ensure its destruction WHEN the government-organized attack took place. Or, that this government planned/organized attack took place to justify Bush's future war against Islam. The conspiracies go on and on and with NOT ONE SHRED OF LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE of support. And, of course, all this is because of the neo-cons in the Bush administration and despite the fact that Al Qaeda has admitted its responsibilty.

I wonder whatever became of the explosives planted in the target of flight 93? There are some who believe the White House was the target. Are the explosives still planted or do you think they have been removed?

Second; No one seems to question the amount of human resources it would take conduct such an attack, for puposes that extend beyond simple hatred; and if caused by our government, would require the support of so many people to keep that effort a secret. That you would have to believe there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of government/military employees; not to mention the hundreds of airline employees it would take to hide missing passengers and fellow workers who died in the crashes; all conspiring to attack their own fellow citizens. And for what purpose? To help legitimize their president/commander-in-chief's desire to take Saddam out of power to steal Iraq's oil or launch an attack on Islam? As an officer in the military AND a pilot for one of the airliners used in the attack: I am appalled by how easy it is for some to even believe in the possibility of what these conspiracies suggest.

Third; So I offer this challenge to you: If you really believe these conspiracies are truth and well-founded, do the honorable thing for your fellow countrymen. Pool together your monies and hire investigators and attorneys to begin the legal discovery of the "wizard behind the curtain". I'm certain that there are enough of you, including some Hollywood types such as Baldwin, Penn, Sarandonand Franken; and some non-Hollywood supporters such as Moore and Sheehan; who would be willing to donate to your cause; and expose the evil Republicans, Democrats, and Independents; the evil Cristians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists who are behind the organizing, planning and execution of these attacks. I bet the ACLU would take up your cause pro-bono. If you are so certain in the possibility of the truth of these conspiracies commited by people, like myself, then stand up and be Americans!! Fight for your cause. Because if you don't then you're nothing but a bunch of Bush-bashers looking for ways to convince other sheeple to hate their own government.

I am VERY confident that all you'll find is the "Wizard" called Islam that fueled the hatred of those who wish to kill us from without---and even today; from within.

[edit on 24-9-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
left behind if you can provide an alternate story for what happen when the titanic sunk, or can show multiple gaps in the "facts" of what happen, then I would be all ears, just link me to the thread you start.


Right, this is the standard of evidence for conspiracies.


Originally posted by grimreaper797
hey if you have a provable theory that a bomb was actually on the ship, be my guest and provide all the evidence. Until that happens, well I guess the official story is the only one around.


This is the standard of evidence in the real world. It is also the standard of evidence that ALL theories about the WTC should be held accountable to.

The problem is when some people like to hold the official story to the second standard, but let any conspiracy theory get away with "multiple gaps in the facts".


Negative proof is will never prove demolition or young earth creation.

If NIST is wrong about how they fell, that does not mean that the towers had bombs in them by default.

So, while critisizing the official story is fine, it really serves no purpose when the alternative theory put forward has more problems than the official one.

Or as it seems is often the case, there is no alternative theory.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

First; this isn't a "first sign of adversity" as you put it. The conspiracies surrounding 911 are comprehensive and extensive; including the notion that those weren't airplanes that struck the Pentagon/WTC; bur rather they were either missiles, or military planes made to look like airliners being flown remotely. Or, that explosives were placed in the WTC to ensure its destruction WHEN the government-organized attack took place. Or, that this government planned/organized attack took place to justify Bush's future war against Islam. The conspiracies go on and on and with NOT ONE SHRED OF LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE of support. And, of course, all this is because of the neo-cons in the Bush administration and despite the fact that Al Qaeda has admitted its responsibilty.



Well first let's get straight what is a legitimate argument against one given conspiracy and what is not a legitimate argument.

Not legitimate - taking all the conspiracy theories, lumping them into one rambling paragraph, and then using the diversity of the myriad conspiracies you lumped together and saying - because of their differences this is all hogwash.

legitimate - taking ONE theory and pointing out the gaps of data, logic, etc. and the contradictory information.

So - your nonheterogeneous mother of all theories paragraph really doesn't address why any one particular theory should be abandoned. Instead, it just gives some evidence of how you have decided to hold ALL conspiracy theories in disdane.

Concerning the question about "if there were explosives in the other targets then what about the fourth target". First off, the 911 Commission Report states the fourth target was the Capital, not the White House (as decided by bin Laden and KSM). Approximately 1 week after the attacks there was this huge "anthrax in the ventilation system" scare that shut down the Capital for a week (maybe more) while the "agencies" were verifying the cleaniness of the place. Come to find out there was no anthrax in the ventilation system, and the anthrax letters that were mailed to Senators that started the whole thing have never led to any solid leads in the investigation. In fact, there really hasn't been much to say about that investigation. And while authorities state that all anthrax strains are easily identifiable to a very small group of sources - for some reason our government agencies won't come out and say they know where this strain came from.

So...anyway, there was about a week or so that the fourth target was closed to everybody but the "investigators" looking for whatever they were looking for, which wasn't anthrax in the ventilation system because that was later declared a false rumor.

[edit on 9-24-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Not legitimate - taking all the conspiracy theories, lumping them into one rambling paragraph, and then using the diversity of the myriad conspiracies you lumped together and saying - because of their differences this is all hogwash.

legitimate - taking ONE theory and pointing out the gaps of data, logic, etc. and the contradictory information.


Legitimate - Lumping conspiracies into one paragraph because they all have the same rediculous theme: President Bush and the government/military are behind the 911 attacks.

Not legitimate - Pointing your finger and accusing YOUR government (AKA fellow Americans) of mass murder or is behind some deliberate plot to kill its own citizens and not doing anything about it (except bitch about it on a BBS)


Why don't you address my challege Valhall?



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Ok, this is a little off the subject, but in many ways it might also be on subject:

Over the past while, I've read on ATS that all of the steel columns that were used to build the WTT's were shipped off to China for recycling, therefore negating any chance of testing the steel for explosives.

This is not true.

Just after 9/11, the city of Christchurch in New Zealand, was host to the World Fireman Championships.

Such were the emotions running through the event, the decision was made to build a sculture outside the main Christchurch City Fire Station (just off Montreal Street, next to the Avon River) to commemerate the lost New York firemen.

The sculpture was designed from (I think) three steel bars by an artist called Graham Bennet.

As far as I know, this is the only sculpture of its kind in the world.

My questions are: Has this steel been tested? And how did this large piece of steel 'slip thru the gap'?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join