Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Plus your thing wit the volcano cloud.. Do you even know what pushes a cloud of ash from a volcano???

Its called hot gasses... If 9/11 happened how they say.. where did these hot gasses come from to push the cloud out so far??

[edit on 4/29/2007 by ThichHeaded]

wow thats a no brainer.
there was no need for hot gasses to push the ash out. the towers fell!!!!

Originally posted by logicaltruth14

Originally posted by selfless
If there was big enough debris to travel 2 city blocks and inflame a bunch of different cars then we would see these magical debris on the multiple 911 videos of the towers.......

u see ash and other small debree in those pics therfore u know debree reached those cars. its not like the caught on fire out of nowhere. think of it like this. brush fires start and spread from one small fire. and those towers are big and it was two of them that collapsed so think about how much debree spread through out the city. just like a volcanic eruption. not that hard to figure out. u guys just want to see wat u want. if u hate bush its ok but why come up with things like this that hurt the very country u live in? if its so crappy that its own govt attacks its self why are u here?

Excuse me, did you not see the pictures of the condition the cars were in (2 BLOCKS AWAY) for debris to do that damage that far away we would have seen it when the planes hit the towers.

If you are implying that the debris were carried 2 blocks away when the buildings came down... if that were the case, you couldn't even see the streets let alone the cars... it would be meters high of debris... just like it was surrounding the towers...


Kinda obvious.



[edit on 29-4-2007 by selfless]

Also buildings would have burned all over Manhattan.That theory of yours just doesn't add up Logicaltruth14.

Originally posted by logicaltruth14
many of you in this site believe that the united states govt was involved in the 9-11 attacks.if i say this isnt true and present my evidence many will question wether ive seen the other sides evidence.

The other sides evidence is here with and without music and comentary

Originally posted by logicaltruth14 if we're too open minded we're vulnerable to such stupidities like the moon landing conspiracy or the 911 conspiracy, and if we're too close minded we are stubborn but more likely to be free of all the bs ideology that goes around.

I rather be open minded then naive, plus I can judge for myself whether the info is bunk

Originally posted by logicaltruth14
this specific conspiracy was created as propaganda for the war in the middle east to lose popularity.

Hate to clue you in but the war is unpopular because it's not going to well.

Originally posted by logicaltruth14 finally this all boils down to the 2008 presidential election. the big issue is ending the war.

I agree with you here, but it's really an occupation at this point don't you think?

Originally posted by logicaltruth14
theyve already won by using this method. look at the 06 elections. it takes one movie star or public officail to introduce this conspiracy, then all it takes is one friend sharing it with another and thats how it spreads.

They? Can you name some of the people who used this "method"?

Originally posted by logicaltruth14
dont ignore the simple facts because in doing so u will see wat u want to see, most videos showing sumthing odd are shown with a question questioning the odd noise or object shifting ur perception.

I've put a good 50 hrs in here reading threads, watching the arguements, there are some real warriors here, just start reading.

Originally posted by logicaltruth14
it is ignorance wether u like it or not.

I don't like ignorance, I don't believe every CT, I do believe in physics, and chemistry, and lust for power.

Originally posted by logicaltruth14
and i suggest u do the same. u seem to think u have evidence or have done research but instead of disproving me ur questioning my credibility which allows u to not present wat u supposedly have and have done. so plz present to me ur arguement and evidence????

Your the 1 stating that material from the building caused the cars to burn. So please show me your research and evidence you have that proves this. Then i will show you my research that debates it. Thats how it works.

Originally posted by logicaltruth14
use common sense. make an educated guess u dumb F*ck

And why isn't this guy banned? ask yourself that... ATS is really starting to make me suspicious.

Originally posted by logicaltruth14
i dont have research i dont have photos i dont have aviation and structural education(what for??)

So, you pretty much bring nothing to the table and should be placed on ignore by everyone here? You don;t know why you should have an education?

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by logicaltruth14
use common sense. make an educated guess u dumb F*ck

And why isn't this guy banned? ask yourself that... ATS is really starting to make me suspicious.

I believe someone is looking into that Pootie.

Whatever did cause those cars to burn, it certainly was not hot gasses from the buildings.

Hundreds of people were standing nearby and hundreds of people got hit with the same could of dust.

Miraculously, none of them burst into flames or melted.

seeing we both cant explain why the cars were burned when they where 2 blocks away i say we just leave it to those who know more about this. u guys can do all the research u want. it still doesnt make u a credible source. people look for flaws in the official story but that doesnt mean it was an inside job. there are more flaws in your story then in the official one. every question u guys have ever raised could easly be dismissed as bs or answered. only because a physicist or a chemist says that its possible doesnt mean anything. how can a physicist explain anything that happen that day?? or a chemist?? there are few who think for themselves, but the majority of people think in a group this makes it harder to find the truth in a net of lies.

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by logicaltruth14
i dont have research i dont have photos i dont have aviation and structural education(what for??)

So, you pretty much bring nothing to the table and should be placed on ignore by everyone here? You don;t know why you should have an education?

hahahahahaha. are u serious???
did u miss the structural and aviation part cause wat for do i need that education!! i didnt mean education in general. let me ask u sumthing how far did u get into ur education??

Originally posted by Pootie
And why isn't this guy banned? ask yourself that... ATS is really starting to make me suspicious.

Because, even with 40+ moderators, it's hard to read every post in every thread... which is why we have a complaint system.


Please engage in civilized discussion.

Originally posted by logicaltruth14
let me ask u sumthing how far did u get into ur education??

You will find that many of the posters you are engaging here have four year degrees or graduate degrees. I have a BS in ME from UM AA... not that it is germane to the topic at hand.

Originally posted by logicaltruth14
ok im sorry ur illiterate. u called me out didnt u?

And please, this is a written medium where the only means by which people can gauge your earnestness is by the manner in which you express yourself in writing. If you care enough about the ideas you're attempting to communicate, than it's reasonable to expect a minimal effort in formatting readable ideas.

Using text shorthand is not a good idea when you're seeking credibility.

Originally posted by logicaltruth14
hahahahahaha. are u serious???
did u miss the structural and aviation part cause wat for do i need that education!! i didnt mean education in general. let me ask u sumthing how far did u get into ur education??

Let me give you a little of my education and background.

1. Crew Chief, US Air Force 4 years
2. Federal Police officer, DoD 12 years
3. Data Analyst, DoD 9 years

So as you can see i have the background and experience in aviation crash scens, crime scenes, emergency incident management, and government reports.

By the way i can post transcripts from the military and the National Cryptologic School.

This is asinine. I responded to 9/11, and was in NYC on the morning of 9/12. There were still cars on fire in the vicinity of Battery Park, which was many blocks from the WTC site. Firefighters were focusing on taking care of people and beginning rescue efforts in the debris, not with extinguishing car fires (not to say they didn't fight the fires).

The argument that thermite or a "fourth generation micro-nuke" was necessary to cause the destruction of the WTC, as well as cause cars to burst into flame, is pointless. For anyone that watches current news, the investigators of the tanker truck that crashed into the MacArthur Maze in San Francisco recently stated that the fire resulting from the crash burned at 2700 degrees F, causing the steel to melt. And that truck was carrying gasoline. Jet fuel also burns at high temps, it just requires more heat to cause ignition. Jet fuel burns at 980degrees C, gasoline at 820. One could conclude that it is therefore possible for the beams in the WTC to melt as a result of fires in the building.

The only real truth is that nobody has ever seen an incident of the same magnitude with all the same inputs, and therefore nobody can say for sure what could and could not happen should a large airliner crash into a building like the WTC.

Also, being an Air Force crew chief and DoD Police Officer does not make you an expert in aviation accidents and crashes. My father was a dedicated crash investigator for the US Army (including the Army's Aviation Program Executive Office) for 28 years, and visited the Pentagon and NYC. Nothing stood out to him as suspicious.

Oh, even more irony...so delicious. The incident caused a ramp connecting the I-580 connector to collapse on top of the I-880 connecter ramp. The I-880 ramp is the only portion which is being repaired, not replaced. CalTrans spent over $4million to demolish and remove the I-580 portion that collapsed.

Now who's not reading current events?

This is just getting silly. Everyone wants what they think they know to be the truth. The fact of the matter is that the San Francisco incident shows that a simple fuel fire can cause enough melting, bending, and warping of a structure to cause it to collapse. That was my point. You decided to look for an argument. I was trying to point out that a generally unaccepted explanation of what happened at the WTC could be as simple as some of us would like it to be, and unlike most people at ATS that attempt to just argue, I was providing a reference. I would like to get back to the issue at hand before this thread gets hijacked.