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.

 

If 9/11 wasn't an inside job then prove it. Conclusively.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   
The thing that gets me, is that those towers were designed to withstand an impact from
planes, full of fuel or not, yet they still collapsed. They even dropped in exactly the
same way. That just doesnt happen.

Planes have even hit houses yet they never fell. Wasnt there a building in madrid that
was hit, burned for hours but still stayed upright?

It doesnt make any sense.




posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by amfirst
Get over this bull. I'm sick of hearing the same old tread, every day.


You're more than welcome to refrain from reading the "same old tread." No one is physically forcing you to click the link, open the page and read the thread. If you don't like it, don't read it.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by CameronFox


We are in agreement. I'm assuming Cameron Fox's side of the story is in agreement with the official story as it appears he is presenting science supporting that.

I agree with the NIST report. That is becasue their studies have been peer reviewed by hundreds of engineers. Anyone that has come out against it has NEVER had their theory peer reviewed.

Now..on to the 911 Commision Report. Thats garbage. I'm sure most agree with that.
[edit on 2-12-2006 by CameronFox]


The NIST report is for crap. And that takes no peer review. They claim steel experienced creep at no more than 300 C for less than 1 hour. That's an idiotic (or if you prefer a downright intentionally false) statement to make.

They state no structural element experienced temperatures in excess of 250 to 300 C and was not exposed to fire for the duration of time between the impact and the collapse. Their own diagrams do not show sufficient damage to structural elements due to initial impact to allow a global collapse.

If you want to go with the official story and feel comfortable, you might re-think your position. You're standing on shifting ground. There's been statements made that CTr's have "changed their story" over the years. But the log in your NIST eye has obviously got your mote-seeking eye clogged. The NIST changed their story for five years straight....and then they settled on one that is scientifically perverse. It's an embarrassment. By the way, that abortion of a report cost the U.S. tax payers $16.5 million. What an expensive turd to have delivered to our dinner table, huh?

In fact, I was just in a business meeting yesterday in which we were creating a potential pool of experts on a particular research subject to draw from for research purposes, and one of them was involved with NIST - I had their name removed from the list of possible candidates. We don't need that idiocy involved in our efforts...not if we want to deal with real science.

[edit on 12-2-2006 by Valhall]


Do I feel comforted by the NIST report? not really...is it 100% accurate? I doubt it! Yes, they have changed their findings as they become available to them. Remember FEMA called it a pancake collapse. As you learn more...you make changes. Remember the original theories from the CT'ers? Pods under the planes! NO PLANES? Holograms, Computerized voices to loved ones....... The "officials" have to make changes as evidence gets looked over. Just like those that question it.

I don't see anyone jumping on the hologram theory that often. NOR do I see the "deniers" jumping on the "pancake collapse" theory.

The bottom line... WERE there explosives in the WTC? Besides Mr. Rodrequez and a few others...there is not ANY proof of this. I'm still looking to find out what floor in the basement the K9 police officer was on in the North Tower. Seismic activity does not support a bomb in the basement levels.
I'm not qualified to make 100% CERTAIN that there wasn't a bomb or bombs...but of all the evidence that I have read leads me to believe that there wasnt. It's MY belief. Until I see some pretty good evidence, I will stay with the "offical" NIST report.

This does NOT mean I am not for a NEW 911 Investigation. This would be to find out WHAT, WHY, and HOW our government FAILED in protecting us. As I have stated several times here...I came here to find information on what Bush DIDN'T do.. and what others thought. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield are all dirty.

Just my Sunday morning rant. (Bored at work today)




posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Why don't you prove that it was an inside job ?

Ridin



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
No he doesn't. There's no one obligated to prove a negative. If your theory is that 911 was an inside job, you are obligated to prove that. But absolutely no one is obligated to prove it is not true.

You're kind of losing sight of logic, aren't you?


Absolutely agree, that was my first thought on seeing the title of this thread. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

If I posted, "If Santa Claus doesn't exist, then prove it. Conclusively." you'd think I was being grossly unfair. I can't simply sit back and demand you go to the North Pole and search for flying reindeer and a workshop, and then when you fail to do so, smile and say, "Ah hah! You see? You didn't disprove it, therefore Santa Claus exists!"

The burden of proof irrefutably lies with the one making the extraordinary claims.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I think one of the biggest clues; that normal people could accept was that two planes didn't have enough gas combined to take down towers that were "blocks" in size. a plane was probably half a block long and only 1/32 of a block on the side view where the fuel was so how oculd it possibly do so much damage, how does it make fire and then later cause a massive collapse? its absurd



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jinsanity
not really. I have a right to ask this question. It was asked of me when I was on the otherside of the coin and i'm forever thankful that I wasn't able to conclusively prove.

I've already provided conclusive proof.

Find my post

Read it and Weep CT deniers. 9/11 undeniable controlled demolition.

the link was 9/11 proof or something like that.

"There's a BOMB in the building...start clearing out..." NY firefighter on 9/11.


No one has provided conclusive proof of government involvement. People seem to have chosen their side of the fence on the issue and most people dismiss anything that contradicts what they want to believe.

Here you say that WTC 7 was definitely a controlled demolition ... you go on to give some quote from a NYC firefighter about clearing out. So what about the 300+ firefighters that died from WTC 1/2?? Were they allowed to die just to make sure it looked good?

How far do you think this conspiracy is involved? You say "government" but at what level. Did NYC decide to mastermind this ... or New York state ... or the Federal goverment? Or do you think all these levels of government worked together to create this conspiracy?? Because we all know how well various levels of government work together.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Planes have even hit houses yet they never fell. Wasnt there a building in madrid that
was hit, burned for hours but still stayed upright?

It doesnt make any sense.


I no know event that involves a house being hit, intentionally and therefore straight on, by a jet liner flying at 500+ MPH and fully loaded with fuel. If you can find such a collision where some wood framed or brick house somehow miracously survived with minimal damage I'd like to see the report. Most of the houses that are hit by planes are by little cessna type private planes and these pilots are doing everything thing they can to avoid the house.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Do I feel comforted by the NIST report? not really...is it 100% accurate? I doubt it! Yes, they have changed their findings as they become available to them. Remember FEMA called it a pancake collapse. As you learn more...you make changes. Remember the original theories from the CT'ers? Pods under the planes! NO PLANES? Holograms, Computerized voices to loved ones....... The "officials" have to make changes as evidence gets looked over. Just like those that question it.

I don't see anyone jumping on the hologram theory that often. NOR do I see the "deniers" jumping on the "pancake collapse" theory.

The bottom line... WERE there explosives in the WTC? Besides Mr. Rodrequez and a few others...there is not ANY proof of this. I'm still looking to find out what floor in the basement the K9 police officer was on in the North Tower. Seismic activity does not support a bomb in the basement levels.
I'm not qualified to make 100% CERTAIN that there wasn't a bomb or bombs...but of all the evidence that I have read leads me to believe that there wasnt. It's MY belief. Until I see some pretty good evidence, I will stay with the "offical" NIST report.

This does NOT mean I am not for a NEW 911 Investigation. This would be to find out WHAT, WHY, and HOW our government FAILED in protecting us. As I have stated several times here...I came here to find information on what Bush DIDN'T do.. and what others thought. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield are all dirty.

Just my Sunday morning rant. (Bored at work today)



You don't seem to understand the gravity of the situation (pfffft - okay, pun wasn't intended). The NIST accepted the mandate to find out what caused the towers to collapse. They took over 16 million dollars of taxpayer money. They delivered such a scientifically-flawed report that if my son handed me that I'd take him behind the woodshed and whip his ass.

It's not a trivial matter. There can be no "New investigation". The evidence is gone. The chance was pissed off by a group who stole our money and fed us cake.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   


Yes but Moussoui was found guilty.

Moussaoui was a stooge, a patsy. He was disavowed as a bungler and wannabe by his own people. His testimony was so all over the place the only thing clear about him was his hate for America and his death wish. The guy is a dead end. His target was the White House, yeah right. Everybody knew the President wasn't in the White House on 9/11. I don't even think Bush and the White House were a target.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by CameronFox

Do I feel comforted by the NIST report? not really...is it 100% accurate? I doubt it! Yes, they have changed their findings as they become available to them. Remember FEMA called it a pancake collapse. As you learn more...you make changes. Remember the original theories from the CT'ers? Pods under the planes! NO PLANES? Holograms, Computerized voices to loved ones....... The "officials" have to make changes as evidence gets looked over. Just like those that question it.

I don't see anyone jumping on the hologram theory that often. NOR do I see the "deniers" jumping on the "pancake collapse" theory.

The bottom line... WERE there explosives in the WTC? Besides Mr. Rodrequez and a few others...there is not ANY proof of this. I'm still looking to find out what floor in the basement the K9 police officer was on in the North Tower. Seismic activity does not support a bomb in the basement levels.
I'm not qualified to make 100% CERTAIN that there wasn't a bomb or bombs...but of all the evidence that I have read leads me to believe that there wasnt. It's MY belief. Until I see some pretty good evidence, I will stay with the "offical" NIST report.

This does NOT mean I am not for a NEW 911 Investigation. This would be to find out WHAT, WHY, and HOW our government FAILED in protecting us. As I have stated several times here...I came here to find information on what Bush DIDN'T do.. and what others thought. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield are all dirty.

Just my Sunday morning rant. (Bored at work today)



You don't seem to understand the gravity of the situation (pfffft - okay, pun wasn't intended). The NIST accepted the mandate to find out what caused the towers to collapse. They took over 16 million dollars of taxpayer money. They delivered such a scientifically-flawed report that if my son handed me that I'd take him behind the woodshed and whip his ass.

It's not a trivial matter. There can be no "New investigation". The evidence is gone. The chance was pissed off by a group who stole our money and fed us cake.
Sad ,but true.How can anything be proven with no evidence.The only way it can be proven is if someone comes forward and admits it.No chance of that cause whoever was involved laughed all the way to the bank.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
The proof is out there. All you have to do is find all the puzzle pieces yourself. Thats the problem. Too many times people post really good videos and generally are ignored by the Conspiracy skeptics. "Yea I'll watch it when I have the time..." and sadly they don't. But it's only themselves they are fooling because this knowledge of 9/11 is important.

If you continue to go into the 21 century trusting your government pretty soon you'll have an RFID chip in you and a security apparatus over all of North America. Surrendering Freedom only brings you false security and tyranny.

911proof.com...

This site is all you need to know that 9/11 was an inside job.

But it helps to watch

9/11 Mysteries
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime. all on google video and all for free.

I've been on and off this forum over the years and I've seen enough evidence posted or pieces of the puzzle posted to say without a shadow of a doubt that 9/11 was an inside job.

The Failure of Norad for instance is the big kicker. FAA warned of hijacings even before the first tower.

85 minutes in all from the 1st warning to the pentagon attack. Ample time to get a squadron ready from Andrews to have washington and the government protected from the air. And Andrews is only 11 miles away!

Compare this to Pain Stewart's learjet mishap. 5 radio hails, no response. 20 minutes later Norad has a squadron flying alongside the Learjet.



[edit on 3-12-2006 by jinsanity]



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Hi, my name is Tej Kohli and I think 911 it's the biggest conspiracy in history. At least after I saw the documentary Fahrenheit 911... Anybody can see it was a big bluff. Even if it's hard to believe, nobody will be able to prove you contrary. At least most of my friends believed it.
Best regards,
Tej Kohli



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   


Compare this to Pain Stewart's learjet mishap. 5 radio hails, no response. 20 minutes later Norad has a squadron flying alongside the Learjet.


And once again you ignore the fact that the TWO planes that intercepted Payne Stewart's plane were already airborne in the area when they were called. Not to mention, they didnt need to be armed.




At least after I saw the documentary Fahrenheit 911


You are kidding me right? You actually BELIEVE the crap Michael Moore produced?



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Swampfox. Did you check out that video by fmr Canadian Defence minister?

Norad had 85 minutes from the first hijacking warning to get planes from Andrews over Washington.

Yes. Micheal Moore is a sack of crap. He's just a schill for the Bushs. He currently owns 1000 shares in Halliburton, KBR and futures.



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jinsanity
I'm curious to see what passes off as the official story these days.

So go for it. Fungi, Cam etc... I'm all ears. If you can quell the swirling ideas of inside job then I'll be there front and centre.

[edit on 2-12-2006 by jinsanity]

[edit on 2-12-2006 by jinsanity]


Burden of proof is on you to prove that it was an inside job. You're saying the equivilant of "prove UFOs aren't there", which of course, is impossible.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   
burden of proof on me? Okay no problem there. Just look up a few posts to one of mine bud...



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Jin, your posts are pure speculation. You haven't supplied ANY proof. If you DID in fact "prove" it. This would no longer be a conspiracy, but a fact.
Bsbray, Fred, and a few others at least offer a hypothisis to their posts. They are also not saying this "definatley" happened this way.
I'm just not educated in the field of structural engineering and demolition to call them on what they post. (most of the time)
Getting information only from Alex Jones will not get you to the so called truth that you are seeking.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I'm just not educated in the field of structural engineering and demolition to call them on what they post. (most of the time)


Is this what you mentally fall back on when you can't come up with a way to circumvent some logic? Because we rarely get into anything very complicated on here, and it's rather presumptuous of you, imo, to just assume we're wrong and you just can't tell because you don't know enough to debunk us.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Bsbray, I think you took my post the wrong way. I have ZERO knowledge with building demolition...structural engineering....YOU seem to know more than the average person. THATS why I dont typically refute what you say. To my knowledge, you havent come out and said... "This is what happened". You have your theories but some others say "100% this is what happened".

the creator of this thread was asking for 100% proof that the offical report is 100% accurate. That is impossible.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join