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.

 

Where's all the WTC 7 deniers now

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
A lowbrow spam thread makes it to hot topic status? I wasn't going to bother posting till I saw that




posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hamking
What existed in the buildings to generate molten metal that burned for 6 to 8 weeks after the collapse of the buildings at temperatures above the theoretical maximum temperatures for hydrocarbon fuel?

Unfortunately we can't say melted steel, because that would contradict the official story of steal not being melted, but only heated to debilitating temperatures.

Unfortunately we can't say jet fuel, because these "hot spot" slag deposits existed under the rubble of building 7 as well.

It had to have been an element that existed in all 3 buildings before the planes struck.

And finally, where did all this sulfur come from?



Another question concerning these "hot spots" would be why are WTC 3, 4, 5, & 6 not nearly as hot as WTC 1, 2, & 7? The only area that is remotely close is that of WTC 3. Most of the towers fell on THESE buildings, much more than WTC 7, AND, they were subjected to much more fire that WTC 7. Why don't they light up the thermal images like the others just days after the collapses? The core of WTC 6 was pulverized into the earth by debris. Why isn't it as hot there also? Same material & debris that was in the towers right? Maybe it's because they were shorter than the others I don't know. The images just don't really make sense to me. I would think that at least ONE tiny spot in the thermal images that would be comparable in heat.

2PacSade-


spelling

[edit on 2-3-2007 by 2PacSade]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   


What you do not understand is that those things exist no matter who is in office. Are you that guillible to think putting someone else in office will change Haliburton contracts or give you free medical care, or lower the cost of a gallon of gas?
Wars are nothing more than arms shows. That is what GW 1 was. It was the oppurtunity to show off the F-117 and the Patriot missle batteries we wanted to sell for protection to other countries, so what better than a war. HUssien was in the wrong place at the right time for US.


I would have to say my friend that you seem to be missing a few major points in our brilliant history of "leadership". Follow the money. War makes us a lot of money. Yes, it still exists with any administration. However, the war on terror is kind of a funny thing. How long will it last? Who are we really fighting? Yes, the administration gained quite a bit by either allowing the events of 911 to happen or by orchestrating them.

As some of the 'nutter' videos out there have shown, there are declassified documents showing just how far our 'leaders' are willing to go in order to gain their objectives. The Middle East has been alluded to for over a hundred years as an objective. There are so many books out there talking to this point. Bush Sr. tried to do it in 91 but failed due to pressure and no real backing. Jr. got that backing from this event. An event that has some very real similarities to Operation Northwoods.

Here is the official document. Don't bother with all of the mumbo jumbo on the first few pages. Just get to the actual actions that they had agreed upon taking but was shot down by the president.



www.gwu.edu...

History shows what great lengths people with power will go to in order to gain more power. If they succeed then in 50 years 911 will never have been questioned and all of the valid evidence and neglected 'unanswered' questions will be brushed aside. History truly is written by the victors so this is why people are questioning this.

So many liberties have been removed in the name of 'national security' and so many unjust experiments and attacks have been forced down our throats.

If a person commits murder in the name of 'national security' is it still murder?



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Northwoods. Yes, a proposition by a warhawk general that never made it to Kennedys desk. If anything, the Northwoods doc proves our own government killed JFK. You see, it is not that I am not a skeptic, it is that I am a realist. Please do not use that document to try to prove our government pulled off 9/11.

You are correct, it is a money trail, and that is what keeps the SUV's, and the plasma TV's and bluetooth phones in operation. It has alwasy been here, and always will be. I mean, do you call every person who drives a Benz or a new chrysler a Nazi? According to the money trail, you should. Along with British parliament and many other US corporations who sold goods to the germans before, during and after the war.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Northwoods. Yes, a proposition by a warhawk general that never made it to Kennedys desk. If anything, the Northwoods doc proves our own government killed JFK. You see, it is not that I am not a skeptic, it is that I am a realist. Please do not use that document to try to prove our government pulled off 9/11.

You are correct, it is a money trail, and that is what keeps the SUV's, and the plasma TV's and bluetooth phones in operation. It has alwasy been here, and always will be. I mean, do you call every person who drives a Benz or a new chrysler a Nazi? According to the money trail, you should. Along with British parliament and many other US corporations who sold goods to the germans before, during and after the war.





You are still the coolest cat on this board so I always take what you say seriously.

But calling someone a Nazi for driving a car versus justifying blatant acts of violence and murder and cover up in the name of 'national security' is a completely different matter altogether.

Northwoods is just one document to prove at what lengths people will go to. The Bay of Pigs was pulled off by other branches of our government without the consent of the president. Of course the heads of each organization were fired over that fiasco but it just goes to show that we (being our government and certain agencies within it) are willing to stage events in order to gain illegitimate backing for their ultimate goals. You can find it strewn throughout ours and other civilizations histories.

The illegal drugging of civilians; illegally exposing our own civilians to radiation; psychotherapeutic manipulation; all in the name of national security. It's in our history. Add to that the exposure of the lies leading up to the second invasion of Iraq and you start to see the bigger picture about what people in power are willing to do in order to secure their own source of power.

Why is it that so many of this current cabinet have begun to resign? What's the total at now? 9? 10? Rats jumping off of a sinking ship my friend. The only ones that are staying are the ones that can't leave.




top topics
 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join