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.

 

Conspirators.....Answer Me This!

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   
The fact is that there is no story to 9/11, just an operation where 4 teams hijacked 4 aircraft and attempted to destroy and kill as many as they could.

The WTC were hit so that they would collapsed into one another, just like they they tried to do in 93.

PNAC is not law, it is a think tank, and there are many. Have you ever read what PNAc wants other than the snippets on prsionplanet and the like. It wants a safe and free US for the future which is what I want. Call me a neocon or what you will.

The US was going to the middle east with or without 9/11. If any of you know anyone in the service pre-9/11 ask them and they will tell you that is was well known we were going back. Islamic terrorists hit us first.

The story an d allure of fantasy make 9/11 conspiracy so entertaining. The only cover up on 9/11 was flight 93. It was controlled by less than a dozen people. That is a conspiracy and the whole nation thinks "let's roll' was a battle cry to wage war for.




posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Conundrum04:
I see you started your account here about 14 days ago correct? This kind of attitude will not get you very far here on ATS. Calling people names like "morons" or "delusional" is looked down upon by the mods that look over these threads. I would tone it down a bit, you made some logical points, you can just do without the name-calling


esdad71:
Umm, I hope your kidding! Did you simply want to disregard WT7 like the offical report did. Ok, cool with me...........

But lets not get into the evidence of 911, it has been cutthroat and bled dry here.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
Conundrum04:
I see you started your account here about 14 days ago correct? This kind of attitude will not get you very far here on ATS. Calling people names like "morons" or "delusional" is looked down upon by the mods that look over these threads. I would tone it down a bit, you made some logical points, you can just do without the name-calling.


I appreciate the concern and I do understand what you are talking about. I've been here at ATS for 2 years now and finally decided to sign up. I do understand that my whopping 8 ATS points gives me no credibility here. But I do plan to put up some OP's within the next fews days to establish some "street cred".


But hey, Taxi-Driver is brand new here as well, so I didn't think calling him or her delusional was off grounds. You know what I'm saying? It's like a 1st grader calling a 1st grader a retard. Big deal. But what if the 1st grader called a 6th grader a retard? Much different story.






posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
If the official reason for going to war was WMD's and our saftey, why did they need to stage a terror attack in the first place? Couldn't they have just told the American public the WMD story and thats it?


The reason is pretty simple. Before 9/11 no one considered Saddam a threat. And there's a pretty simple reason for that too : Iran/Iraq war + Desert Storm + "No fly zone" + Economic sanctions + continued bombing = weak and powerless.

So you :
1. Pull a 9/11
2. Blame OBL
3. Claim Iraq helped (or something !)
4. ...
5. Profit !

Many of the people who said Iraq was a threat where the same people who before 9/11 said Iraq was no threat.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 04:59 AM
link   
if you look at video of other building collapses they always fall in big chunks. the twin towers was basically exploding top to bottom outward, what kind of collapse does that? the official story says a pancake collapse..ok..so how does that generate enough force to literally turn the following floors below into dust. none of it adds up. all the cia connections alone should be raising eyebrows. the u.s in the middle east i believe has been a long time plan, the only reason it didnt happen sooner was because our government had to first get the soviet union out of the way since they were at the time playing the same chess game. and with the fall of the soviets opened up even more doors for the u.s. to take central asia along with the rest of the middle east, they need that area to build the proposed pipe lines. at this point in the game its like the government know they can get away with anything they want, how many in our population will really stand up to them and by what means? seriously. when you look at..its a systematic take over of the world. as a side note.....any of you see that movie shooter with mark wahlberg? i was watching it the other night and noticed something that was funny, in a scene in the beginning mark wahlberg walks into his house then sits at his desk, theres a copy of the 9/11 commission report on his desk and as he logs onto his laptop he says lets see what kind of lies they're selling us today....that and later on int he movies when he's talkng to the old sniper guy about government lies....jus thought that was funny



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
What weight? The plane hitting the building did not add any extra weight that the building could not hold. The towers were designed to hold 5x their weight.

Sry but your logic doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


Thats exactly what i was thinking. Thank you for putting in into better words than i could.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
what I don't get is why 3,000 people had to die on that day.


Well if you think it was an inside job then just look at the 'Rebuilding Americas defenses' report just prior to 9/11 where it states they needed a new 'catalysing' and 'catastrophic' event (ala 9/11) like a new 'pearl harbor' which is exactly what they got. This is where it gets a little spooky, Pearl harbor suffered around the same amount of fatalities (approx 3000) and that was indeed the same amount of fatalities for 9/11 - the target was met for the death toll to be like a new pearl harbor. It seems somewhere these great military generals worked out at some point you need about 3000 deaths is order to get the people angry enough to back the war.

Whats more, notice how much the press referred to 9/11 as 'the new pearl harbor'? Can that just all be co-incidence?



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   


What weight? The plane hitting the building did not add any extra weight that the building could not hold. The towers were designed to hold 5x their weight.


Its not the weight - its the fact that 300,000+ pounds is slamming into
the building at 500 mph that is the problem! The tremendous energy
of such an impact destroyed much of the structure and started massive
fires on several floors.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   
But yet the building that was hit at an angle falls before the one hit straight on....

Was that because it was a larger imapct or was the second building hit not built as well as the first one?



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman



What weight? The plane hitting the building did not add any extra weight that the building could not hold. The towers were designed to hold 5x their weight.


Its not the weight - its the fact that 300,000+ pounds is slamming into
the building at 500 mph that is the problem! The tremendous energy
of such an impact destroyed much of the structure and started massive
fires on several floors.


massive fires? the fires were almost out, listen to the firefighters' transmission tapes. most of the fuel burned off on impact hence the big fireball. i remember watching a skyscrapper here in philly burn all night and it didnt even come close to collapsing! sure the 500mph impact would cause major damage to the immediate area and even make the floors above vulnerable but the rest of the building would of held up. and above all how can you truly dispute the eye witnesses talking about explosions going off all over and even in the basement levels. and again for the "massive" fires..why is there lots of pics & video showing people standing right in the impact holes before the collapse. also note that the first tower to fall was the second one hit.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Actually we did go to war as a direct result of 9/11. Because of 9/11 and the Taliban's refusal to turn over Osama Bin Laden


could you site your source please? ive heard differently so with no evidence its a mute point.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Its not the weight - its the fact that 300,000+ pounds is slamming into
the building at 500 mph that is the problem! The tremendous energy
of such an impact destroyed much of the structure and started massive
fires on several floors.


Hey I didn't say it was the weight, that was the taxi dude. The buildings obviously with stood the aircraft impact before they globally collapsed into dust and twisted steel. Was it the plane that ejected pieces of the facade, weighing in the tons, 600 ft away from the building? Was it the plane that pulverised concrete, furniture, people? Was it the plane that magically allowed the towers to ignore the laws of physics and fall with no resistance?
What pancaked the massive central structure?

Where did the 'tremendous energy' come from to do that? Jet fuel? Yeah that's a good one...


Sorry but it makes no difference how fast the plane was going, aluminum vs construction steel, the steel will win every time. Go ahead and try it yourself if you don't believe me. Go get a piece of aluminum and piece of steel and see if you can make the aluminum break the steel.

Have you really thought this through, or are you just parroting the lies the government told you?



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Was it the plane that ejected pieces of the facade, weighing in the tons, 600 ft away from the building?


Now honestly I'm not sure what to think about the WTC, but considering this, the facade of the WTC, say at the top, only needed a horizontal velocity of 20 m/s to do that, considering it was falling for ten seconds. Less if it bounced, though steel doesn't bounce that well.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Hey I didn't say it was the weight, that was the taxi dude.


I said it was the weight. Because it *was* the weight that caused WTC2 to collapse sooner than WTC 1..

Try this exercise-- Stand on 20 saks of potatoes and hold 10 sacks of potatos over your head...pretty heavy right? Now, stand on 10 sacks of potatoes and hold 20 sacks of potatos over your head. Is it heavier to hold 10 sacks of potatos over your head or 20 sacks?

After all there is the same amount of "potato weight" in each scenario-- in one scenario there is more above --in the other there is more below.

Weight....being supported--

In the case of the WTC towers, the support for that weight was damaged badly by huge ass jetliners and subsequent fire.


The buildings obviously with stood the aircraft impact before they globally collapsed into dust and twisted steel.


But there was serious damage done-- How could there not be? The resulting fires COUPLED with the impact of the Jetliners IN ADDITION to the WEIGHT above the impact sites all contributed to massive deterioration of the Tower's support.

Buildings are made up of many small parts working in harmony. They are not One-solid-object like a massive tree. If enough of the harmony of those smaller working parts is disrupted or eliminated, the structure becomes UNSOUND and the condition of the structure *could deteriorate rapidly.


Was it the plane that ejected pieces of the facade, weighing in the tons, 600 ft away from the building?


No, it was the massive WEIGHT of the upper portions of the towers (no not working in harmony with the rest of the structure) that cause the lower parts of the struture to be moved and damaged, all the while taking on more damage to itself.


Was it the plane that pulverised concrete, furniture, people?


No, again it was massive amounts of the upper portions of the towers that were growing more massive upon that portion landing on the SINGLE floor below.


Was it the plane that magically allowed the towers to ignore the laws of physics and fall with no resistance?


That is silly.


What pancaked the massive central structure?


Remember, the "central structure" --the core-- was NOT some 110 story tall SOLID OBJECT. It too was made of smaller parts working in harmony. While the core was stronger than the outer supports and the actual floors and floor trusses, it was never designed to stand alone without the other components. ( If you look at video the core did stand breifly after the floors and outer columns collapse had progressed to points much closer to ground levels.)



Where did the 'tremendous energy' come from to do that? Jet fuel? Yeah that's a good one...


When you see a building fall due to a "controlled demolition" where does the energy come from to do that? Explosives?

In your estimation do you think that the energy released by explosives during a controlled demolition would be:

1. Much more than a Boeing 767, loaded with fuel, impacting a building going 500 mph then causing widespread uncontrolled fires across several floors.

2. About the same as a Boeing 767, loaded with fuel, impacting a building going 500 mph then causing widespread uncontrolled fires across several floors.

3. Much less than a Boeing 767, loaded with fuel, impacting a building going 500 mph then causing widespread uncontrolled fires across several floors.


Go get a piece of aluminum and piece of steel and see if you can make the aluminum break the steel.


Jetlines are not 100% Aluminum. While I don't contend that aluminum is stronger than steel, you cannot disregard velocity.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conundrum04

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

I agree that the 9/11 attacks lack motive from our government.

I fully believe the US could have done everything it has done in Afganistan and Iraq with or without the deaths on 9/11


Then you are completely delusional and prefer a life of fantasy rather than reality. The US has/had major interests in the middle east and were looking for an opportunity to further their agenda in that region.


I find it interesting you feel I live a life of fantasy. Strange indeed.

So you feel that the US could not have carried out the same military operations in Afganistan and Iraq had there NOT been a 9/11?

Why not? What was the catalyst to bomb Bosnia? How about Korea? Grenada? Panama? Mogidishu? Why didn't each of those military actions require a 9/11 type event?

Wouldn't the exposure of stark opression and the fact that the Taliban was aiding an organization ALREADY --PRE-9/11-- wanted by US Authorities for the murder of US Military and civilians ( Embassy bombings, Saudi barracks, USS Cole) -- wouldn't that have been enough, had the US decided to concentrate on that area?

Ya see, 9/11 wasn't necessary if you assume it was an inside job or whatever. NEEDLESS RISK.

The rest of Conundrum04's post was just some parroting of an Alex Jones program. I find it Ironic that people that accuse others of being "brainwashed sheeple from disneyland" are so quick to believe an " alternative explaination" without any scrutiny whatsoever.

I guess if feels cool to be a --rebel with a secret-- for me, facts rule.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
The fact is that there is no story to 9/11, just an operation where 4 teams hijacked 4 aircraft and attempted to destroy and kill as many as they could.

The WTC were hit so that they would collapsed into one another, just like they they tried to do in 93.

PNAC is not law, it is a think tank, and there are many. Have you ever read what PNAc wants other than the snippets on prsionplanet and the like. It wants a safe and free US for the future which is what I want. Call me a neocon or what you will.

The US was going to the middle east with or without 9/11. If any of you know anyone in the service pre-9/11 ask them and they will tell you that is was well known we were going back. Islamic terrorists hit us first.

The story an d allure of fantasy make 9/11 conspiracy so entertaining. The only cover up on 9/11 was flight 93. It was controlled by less than a dozen people. That is a conspiracy and the whole nation thinks "let's roll' was a battle cry to wage war for.



thefatlady replies:

The money trail I was shown leads ultimately back to Neo Nazis. The suicide bombers were also trained by neonazis. If you'll look closely both the Bushes and the Clintons have heavy Nazi ties. I also know there WERE WMDs, have personally laid eyes on them. I don't think that's why we went into Iraq as illustrated by the fact we gave Sadaam much warning to transfer them into Syria. The people who wanted this war are Not friends of Israel, they wanted the WMDs NOT to be captured so they can later be used on Israel. Also question the motive for 9/11, it was the biggest gold and silver heist in history. As to what brought the towers down---that was us. In the original scenario, the towers were full, they held, then they toppled over killing more than 70,000 people. We went back and changed a few things and took the towers down by masers and conventional explosives. Anything else I can not tell you. I do believe that 9/11 was staged in part by the families profiteering off this war because the American people would never have accepted the war without such a visceral reason to go over there. Follow the money trail. Look at who trained the suicide bombers. They were pawns in a much larger and more deadly game. Also another tidbit you might be interested in: Sadaam told me it was our CIA who gassed the Kurds and that family members of his were killed in those gassings. Veddy Veddy Intellesting!!!



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Sadaam told me it was our CIA who gassed the Kurds



And I am the King of Spain! Prove me wrong!

Por que yo hablo EsPaÑol!



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Why not? What was the catalyst to bomb Bosnia? How about Korea? Grenada? Panama? Mogidishu? Why didn't each of those military actions require a 9/11 type event?


Each of those military actions was U.N. sanctioned, were not on a large scale (compared to the current actions in Iraq, which are more comparable to the level of mobilization seen in the Vietnam conflict), did not involve invasion and occupation and were (unfortunately) not 'mainstream' conflicts (if you'll pardon the rather callous term) in that they did not have the same share of the public eye and media as besieging a more well-known and 'established' country like Iraq.

To be honest, the Mogidishu action didn't even ring a bell with me. I had to go look up it just now.


I am highly skeptical that the American public would've backed an invasion against non-aggressors like Iraq and Afghanistan without 9/11 to spur them on. Hell, back in the day, most Americans didn't even want anything to do with World War II until it was right at their doorstep.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Wouldn't the exposure of stark opression and the fact that the Taliban was aiding an organization ALREADY --PRE-9/11-- wanted by US Authorities for the murder of US Military and civilians ( Embassy bombings, Saudi barracks, USS Cole) -- wouldn't that have been enough, had the US decided to concentrate on that area?


In the climate pre-9/11? I'd doubt it.

The Western world's public is fairly distanced from the atrocities that happen overseas, and tends to turn a blind eye to them (however sad that may be). Consider such figures as Mobutu Sese Seko, whose rediculous 'government' and crimes against humanity were widely publicized and about as well-known as 3rd world dictator atrocities become over here.

Where was the public outcry and call for invasion back then? Tucked away to the numb nether reaches of most people's brains, given that there was no immediate threat to them and the terrible things were happening so far away.

Not that I would've condoned an attack in this instance either ('Mobutu or Chaos' was a popular term for good reason), I'm merely illustrating that major actions tend to require a percievable and 'tangible' threat to meet before they can get off of the ground.

EDIT: I said 'post-9/11' when I meant to say 'pre-9/11'. Corrected this typo.

[edit on 29-7-2007 by GrinningMoon]



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Try this exercise-- Stand on 20 saks of potatoes and hold 10 sacks of potatos over your head...pretty heavy right? Now, stand on 10 sacks of potatoes and hold 20 sacks of potatos over your head. Is it heavier to hold 10 sacks of potatos over your head or 20 sacks?


How has that got anything to do with a building designed to hold 5x it's own weight? Do you think a 757, or the top 20 odd floors, is heaver than 5 world trade center towers. Sry but your logic is a little flawed mate.

Try it like this, jab a knife into your neck and gauge a big hole in there, will your head cause your body pancake collapse down to your feet?

Using your logic WTC one should not have collapse exactly the same way as WTC two, as the plane didn't even hit the central columns in WTC 2. We should have seen a different effect. The plane DID NOT sever the central structure. You are just assuming the central structure was damaged, there is NO proof that it was, and common sense, some basic knowledge of physics and engineering will tell you that the plane could not have caused that much damage to the massive 47 central columns to cause them to completely fail at the same time. Even if they did again simple physics tells us that a global collapse is impossible due to resistance, and a few other laws of physics.

Sry but the central structure was a solid bolted and welded structure that is not going to pancake down on itself. What you're saying is not logical.

Even NIST doesn't support the pancake theory.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join