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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

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.



NEEDLESS RISK??? REALLY??

Please, go read some real history books and hopefully you can begin to identify with those people you read about. Do you think history is real? Do you think you are superior to those that existed in the past? I'll answer for you, Yes. You do. You don't understand the past and how the past relates to the now, the future and you. You see 5, 25, 75 years ago probably seems like an eternity ago to you, yet my grandma will turn 95 years old within a week and she went through 2 world wars and the great depression. Could you understand what it would've been like going through times? No, you couldn't, because you ARE so better than history. History and the understanding of the past are for losers in your mind.

911 wasn't necessary!!???? Please, read something, anything!!! Please!!! Oh yeah, wait, we could of bombed them for opium. No, we rewarded the taliban for their support and efforts in getting rid of that. I forgot.
www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11629

Okay, let's bomb them for support of terrorism.

Oh wait, the war on terrorism hasn't kicked off yet and Osama has not scared the s**t out of our citizens yet. So how can we get support to kick off this war of "terra" so we can more easily bomb countries, as we wish, to gain a strategic foothold in the ME?

Bomb the USS Cole? No, that didn't work.

The Africa US embassy bombing? Hell no! Who in america goes to africa!!

Well gee whiz, what does it take to be able to bomb a freakin' country that you want for economic strategic motivations in today's age?

If only we could have "...some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.". GEEZ. BUt that's just wishful thinking.

9/11/01, NO WAY!!! Who could have believed they could do that to us. NO!!! The good ole US of A. "Why do they hate us? I mean all we want to do is invade and occupy their countries for our own financial well being... oh, and to bring them freedom or democracy or whatever it is to their people."

Yeah, no reason for 911.


This is sarcasm Mods. With much respect, don't hate please.

Thank you.




posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   

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 is this a solid analogy? The weight load on top of the WTC did not change - only the structural integrity of the building did (and only to a limited extent - one that engineers and architects had a long history of claiming would not cause the building to fail).

Why fall back on analogies at all? Why not use real world examples instead?


How many skyscrapers previously have experienced extreme physical trauma from raw stresses and/or fire? How many have failed as a result?

- July 28, 1945. The Empire State Building in New York City was accidentally crashed into by a B-25 Mitchell bomber. The plane struck between the 79th and 80th floors at a great enough velocity to send debris shooting out the side of the building opposite to the crash. The core column of the building was definately penetrated, resulting in several elevator falls. The ensuing fire was not extinguished for 40 minutes. The building did not fail, and was open for business on many floors (though, obviously, repairs had not yet been completed) the second day after the crash.

- Unspecified month, 1946. The 40 Wall Street building was hit by United States Coast Guard airplane at it's pyramidal tower. The building suffered only minimal damage, and certainly did not fail.

- May 11, 1970. The Great Plains Life Building in Lubbock, Texas was struck by an F5 rated tornado. Despite having it's superstructure physically twisted and deformed by the vortex, the building did not fail, was not required to be demolished and was repaired to remain standing today as the Metro Tower.

- March 31, 2002. The Taipei 101 in Taipei, Taiwan was rocked by a 6.8 magnitude earthquake, tossing a construction crane from the tallest floor at the time (the 56th) and starting small fires. The building did not fail (on the contrary, it was hardly affected by the quake).


This is just the frost on the iceburg, I'm sure, but it can go ahead and get us started. I haven't read an absolutely comprehensive list of skyscraper history, but given that the Singer building is still recorded as one of the largest building to ever be destroyed (it being demolished on purpose) after WTC 1 & 2, I'm somewhat doubtful anyone can find an example of another skyscraper that has failed due to trauma.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinningMoon



- July 28, 1945. The Empire State Building in New York City was accidentally crashed into by a B-25 Mitchell bomber. The plane struck between the 79th and 80th floors at a great enough velocity to send debris shooting out the side of the building opposite to the crash. The core column of the building was definately penetrated, resulting in several elevator falls. The ensuing fire was not extinguished for 40 minutes. The building did not fail, and was open for business on many floors (though, obviously, repairs had not yet been completed) the second day after the crash.



But the plane that hit the ESB wasn't going 500mph.


Speed is everything with them. If the planes that hit the WTC's were only going 200mph, then you might have an arguement with the "debunkers". Doubt it though.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   

But the plane that hit the ESB wasn't going 500mph.

Speed is everything with them. If the planes that hit the WTC's were only going 200mph, then you might have an arguement with the "debunkers". Doubt it though.


...I don't get it?

I thought that the argument (that is, I KNOW that the argument, from an official standpoint) is that the fires were the primary cause of the destruction?

The raw energy transferred, while not irrevelent, is hardly as substantial as the raw damage inflicted on the building. The crash penetrated all the way through the building, with one of the bomber's engines tearing through the opposite side to the impact, and left a 5 meter by 6 meter gash in the side of the building. Both fuel tanks reportedly exploded and engulfed the entire 79th floor in flames.

This is an extremely close equivelent to what happened at WTC 1 & 2, particularly when one considers the fires.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinningMoon

But the plane that hit the ESB wasn't going 500mph.

Speed is everything with them. If the planes that hit the WTC's were only going 200mph, then you might have an arguement with the "debunkers". Doubt it though.


...I don't get it?

I thought that the argument (that is, I KNOW that the argument, from an official standpoint) is that the fires were the primary cause of the destruction?

The raw energy transferred, while not irrevelent, is hardly as substantial as the raw damage inflicted on the building. The crash penetrated all the way through the building, with one of the bomber's engines tearing through the opposite side to the impact, and left a 5 meter by 6 meter gash in the side of the building. Both fuel tanks reportedly exploded and engulfed the entire 79th floor in flames.

This is an extremely close equivelent to what happened at WTC 1 & 2, particularly when one considers the fires.


I've read on a lot of posts here by debunkers that the plane that hit the ESB was smaller and was going a lot slower than the planes that hit the WTC buildings. Which means, in their minds, you can't compare the two. The situations are completely different therefore, you must'nt ponder why ESB didn't disintergate into fine dust like the WTC's.

So let's get this straight.

A 767 traveling 500mph hitting tall sky scraper ='s the complete annihilation of a 110 story building(it was inevitable), done twice in one day. A B-25 bomber traveling 200mph into a 102 story building ='s a big hole, major damage, some fires, a little death and absolutely no fear of a global collapse whatsoever. Case closed.

No need to discuss any more. Oh, and the ESB is a much stronger building than the WTC's were. They built that thing stronger than a freakin' rock!


Logic and physics don't bode well with these "debunkers".



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   
alot of you are talking about invading the middle east like we left 16 years ago....

the only foul play i suspect from the government is standing by....i believe they knew that it was more than a normal terrorist threat....(as in normally that little kid down the street says he's going to kill you...but this time the kid brandishes a weapon)...

but i do not believe that they knew that on sep 11 2001 19 hijackers were going to crash 2 planes into the WTC one into the pentagon, and another that was never determined exactly where

[edit on 29-7-2007 by wenfieldsecret]



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
it didnt edit the last one...


so what you're telling me, is that a B-25 whose pilot is trying everything he can to avoid the tens of skyscrapers in his way, and finnally crashing into the world trade center, will do the exact same damage as a 757 whose total intent is to put every last ounce of hisself into damaging the building ahead of him??

a picture of the 18x16 or so hole in the esb




posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinningMoon

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,


Wrong! Neither Panama nor Grenada were "U.N. sanctioned" as a matter of fact our closest ally, Great Britain, didn't even know about our plans to invade Grenada!

Guess what countries had U.N sanctions levied against them PRIOR to 9/11? Taliban lead Afganistan and Iraq.

en.wikipedia.org...



were not on a large scale


Do you realize that we had 28,000 US troops on the ground in Panama? ALL American troops.

In Afganistan there are 33,000 troops from a variety of different nations.

Do you realize we had 300 aircraft deployed in Pamama?

Compared to about 100 deployed in Afganistan.


did not involve invasion and occupation


Um...yes..they all did. Where are you getting this stuff?



and were (unfortunately) not 'mainstream' conflicts


Um..yes..they all were. They just didn't last as long.


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.


You don't think Korea, Vietnam, or Panama is as well known as Iraq? I will give you Grenada (due to its size) but c'mon! Invading a country is GLOBAL big news no matter how popular YOU perceive it.


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


Try "Blackhawk Down"



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.


Non-Aggressors? WTF! How can you sit there and seriously say Saddam was a "non-aggressor"

Furthermore, what catalizing event occured in order to bolster the "American public's" support of the invasion and occupation of Grenada, and Panama.

Now that you know they were not UN sanctioned (Grenada), and were as large of scale as Afganistan (Panama). I don't remember being asked by congress and the military if it was Ok to proceed...must have been an oversight-- after all I am a part of the American public!

Ya see, it is unnecessary for our government to ransack our largest city, kill thousands of people (possibly their own grandma, or nephew) to do something they have the power to do in the first place.

They didn't "need" to sway public opinion. As it turns out opinion was swayed due to Al Queda terroists on 9/11, but our government never "needed" it to happen to carry out operations.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conundrum04

NEEDLESS RISK??? REALLY??


Yes.....REALLY.


Please, go read some real history books and hopefully you can begin to identify with those people you read about. Do you think history is real?


I am obsessed with data...history is one of my favorite subjects due to the amount of data it contains.


Do you think you are superior to those that existed in the past? I'll answer for you, Yes. You do.


Thanks for answering for me there, Buckwheat. Now explain to me precisely how you have come to this conclusion. Are we long lost friends, and I just don't realize it?


You don't understand the past and how the past relates to the now, the future and you. You see 5, 25, 75 years ago probably seems like an eternity ago to you,


I believe I understand it quite well. I wish it felt like an eternity ago, however life moves pretty fast..



yet my grandma will turn 95 years old within a week and she went through 2 world wars and the great depression.


Are you saying you are your own Grandma? Or that you are the only person in the world with a Grandma? thus your take on history is uber-enhanced due to your conversation with elder family members?


Could you understand what it would've been like going through times? No, you couldn't, because you ARE so better than history. History and the understanding of the past are for losers in your mind.


Enough with the Ad Hom already, I mean really, are you just rambling to derail or what?


911 wasn't necessary!!???? Please, read something, anything!!! Please!!! Oh yeah, wait, we could of bombed them for opium. No, we rewarded the taliban for their support and efforts in getting rid of that. I forgot.
www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11629

Okay, let's bomb them for support of terrorism.


We did... I guess you missed that part of "history". We fired 75 Cruise missles into Afganistan before 9/11 (while Clinton was in office)-- The reason? Terrorism.


Oh wait, the war on terrorism hasn't kicked off yet and Osama has not scared the s**t out of our citizens yet. So how can we get support to kick off this war of "terra" so we can more easily bomb countries, as we wish, to gain a strategic foothold in the ME?

Bomb the USS Cole? No, that didn't work.

The Africa US embassy bombing? Hell no! Who in america goes to africa!!

Well gee whiz, what does it take to be able to bomb a freakin' country that you want for economic strategic motivations in today's age?


Wow....just wow..

Let me ask you something: Do you believe that there are people outside of the US that despise you and would like nothing more than to see you perish based on radical religious principal?

[snipped- hyperbole]


This is sarcasm Mods. With much respect, don't hate please.

Thank you.


It is much better than sacrasm... it is posts like yours that keep me comming back to ATS .. you just cannot find this stuff anywhere..heh.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver


It is much better than sacrasm... it is posts like yours that keep me comming back to ATS .. you just cannot find this stuff anywhere..heh.


Yeah, old sarcasm. Used when level headed people can see through absolute BS and can interpret the absurdities, hypocrisies, and fallacies of the"people in power" that exist and use it in a comedic forum to commoners.

It's really a shame. I used to drive a taxi in Las Vegas for three months. I didn't have to, just did it for the hell of it. I wonder if you drive a taxi for real.

I'm always amazed when I encounter people that want to be lied to. It's fascinating to me, because I don't like being lied to and can't understand people like yourself that want to hold on to the belief that " Santa Clause is coming town!"(holding on to lies and then passing those lies onto your offspring).

The comment about time. 1900 AD is now, 500 BC is now. We exist in the present, but we are the past. If you can't relate to a serf in Europe, a slave in America, an artist, a king, an executioner, then you choose to live in fantasy and will not and can not understand who you are.

I really feel sorry for a lot of people because the people that continue to put their head in the sand are the ones that will suffer the most.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
it didnt edit the last one...


so what you're telling me, is that a B-25 whose pilot is trying everything he can to avoid the tens of skyscrapers in his way, and finnally crashing into the world trade center, will do the exact same damage as a 757 whose total intent is to put every last ounce of hisself into damaging the building ahead of him??

a picture of the 18x16 or so hole in the esb



Every last ounce? Gee, I guess if I'm commented to ramming every last once of myself driving a car at 80mph into a side of a house I could bring that house down right? Because I'm so dedicated to the cause of bringing down this house, it will fall.

Gawd be thy witness!!!

The speed, the size, and the fuel of the plane caused the buildings to DESINTEGRATE into powder. That excuse is almost like KING KONG decided to step on the towers smashing it completely into oblivion. Oh, I forgot, King Kong was only 70 feet high or so. So fantasy is out the window, or is it?

So now I've learn something new. If I can envision that I can bring down sky scrapers, stadiums, the rocky mountains, etc. all I have to do is ram something into it's side, very fast. And if I'm so fortunate to live through the impact, I could watch the said monstrosities desintergrate before my very eyes.

Wow! That Speilberg sure is great!

America really is the land of make believe.




posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   
i was trying to be alliterative....but the b-25 pilot was "in the middle of a desperate, climbing turn,"www.damninteresting.com...
and the terrorists aimed and gunned it...the b-25 was prolly at 2/5's the speed of the 757.

and correction the hole was 18x20



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   
the whole problem with the WMD arguement is that we sold them WMD in the 80's and got caught. It was called the iran contra scandle and it was on tv 24/7.

since we didnt find any WMD the story that they were there but were moved is highly likely.

its fuel for both sides really, as much as i hate to say it. on one side we have 'we know they were there'. on the other side we have 'theyre not there now so you must be lieing'.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
i was trying to be alliterative....but the b-25 pilot was "in the middle of a desperate, climbing turn,"www.damninteresting.com...
and the terrorists aimed and gunned it...the b-25 was prolly at 2/5's the speed of the 757.

and correction the hole was 18x20


I was dam near lmao reading those comments on that website. It was especially amusing reading engineer1's comments.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
satan caused 9-11. I can prove it, he entered GWB jr's stargate, hence Georgey saying that "God" spoke to him..

Go here and watch "911 stargate" then the rest.
thebravenewworldorder.blogspot.com...



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Naw, if the Government was as evil and smart as some of you folks seem to think, they would have just hired a couple of 4 man teams of "false flag" Al Queda operatives and blown themselves up in two full elementary schools.


I have to disagree with you Gwionx.

They could have done it with 2-man teams.

Forget all the amazingly complex craptrap leading up to the planes actually colliding with the towers (NORAD, FAA, media, Pentagon officials all turning Judas)...there is zero percent chance that "THEY" would painstakingly wire the two largest controlled demolitions in the history of mankind...and then ram planes into them, unnecessarily comprimising the effectiveness of their demolition.

I will be the first to admit that I am fascinated by the way the towers fell, and wary of the government's failure to release certain information regarding 9/11.

But it flies in the face of logic that the evil "THEY" would actually arrive at the 9/11 attack as a path of least resistence to achieve their goals.

If public opinion meant THAT MUCH to our fearless leader we certainly would have seen another "false flag" by now...damn...planes would be falling out of the sky, buildings exploding, malls collapsing, ebola wafting...as soon as his support numbers dropped below 30% THREE YEARS AGO.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   


Let me first say that I am a firm believer of what the evidence suggests, and that is that 911 was indeed a "False flag" operation preformed by the US government. Nothing is more obvious than WTC 7 IMO. But that is beside the point. If indeed 911 was perpetrated by Uncle Sam, what I don't get is why 3,000 people had to die on that day.



Did Hitler care if millions died. No. He needed war profits.

Any new Hitler would act the same if a 9/11 were needed for war profits.

Hitler surviving with his war profits and super weapons in American hands
would be quite a scoop.

Besides all the regular dis info, remember Hitlers death may have been
faked and being alive would be a bigger secret than JFK and 9/11 combined.

Hitlers not alive now but some one is acting like him.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
...a B-25 whose pilot is trying everything he can to avoid the tens of skyscrapers in his way, and finnally crashing into the world trade center, will do the exact same damage as a 757 whose total intent is to put every last ounce of hisself into damaging the building ahead of him??


LOL that's the funniest one I've heard yet. How does the intent of the pilot have anything to do what damage the plane would cause?

And it's himself not hisself...


But still how do you explain the expulsion of steel, weighing tons, 600ft away? Plane impacts, fires, or gravity will not do this.
How do you explain the tilt and rotation of WTC 2 and it's sudden defiance of physics? Without some kind of energy acting on the undamaged part of the tower this is not possible.
How did it stop it's inertia and decide to crush the undamaged building bellow the pivot point of the tilt? It broke at least three laws of physics, inertia, angular momentum, and conservation of energy. Go look them up.
It wasn't even sitting true so how does it manage to cause the undamaged building to fall with all four corners equally? Only in hollywood.
Please explain this using the laws of physics. I don't want to hear it was heavy...



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   
english was never one of my strong points....

if the pilots intent is to miss the building he's going to do what he can to prevent as much damage as he can.....if his intent is to crash into the building...well you get the point.

i dont know physics, so i cannot sit here and dispute with you laws and what not.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
...if the pilots intent is to miss the building he's going to do what he can to prevent as much damage as he can..
...i dont know physics...


If you are non-English speaker I apologize about that comment, if you are then I have no sympathy.

Intent has nothing to do with result, so no I don't get the point. You can't put the brakes on in an aircraft. There is no way to minimize the impact if you are going to crash.

I'm glad you admit you don't know physics. This is one of the problems the de-bunkers seem to have, because the truth is in the physics of the collapses, period. If you took some time and just read up on some basic laws of physics you might understand why the towers could not have collapsed the way they did without some kind of energy acting on them, other than fire and gravity. Some things you need to learn about, resistance, inertia, conservation of energy, just to start.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join