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.

 

U.S. District Court Unseals 9/11 "Inside Job" Case

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by donk_316
Not the rediculous hologram / missle / phaser / Mr. Fission / Aliens / Muppets, etc etc etc theories that seem to run rampant here.


I agree that a no planes theory does sound unbelievable. Don't forget however that there is evidence that -weird- stuff happened: lobby and basements that explode, cars that melt, missiles on video, missing planes on video, the list goes on. I still believe planes hit, but that doesn't explain the evidence away.
I think it's good that people dig up the craziest ideas if it helps them to understand the problem better. You never know what you will find or what piece of evidence can put you on the right track.

Don't forget that at first 99% of the people just took the attacks for terrorist attacks, it was only by looking at other evidence and theories that people begun to open their eyes.
It's a bit ironic to then later try to draw a line in the sand just because the theory sounds 'far-out'.

I don't have to believe in space beams to appreciate the effort that has been done on collecting evidence surrounding the burnt cars and what not, it is specific searches like this that can shine alot of light on something that looked very mundane before. And to be honest, wrapping it up in a straw man like you did sounds like you're just looking for confirmation on what to believe.




posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Leyla
I want the truth.


Sorry to say (and this is NOT directed at you - just using that quote) but for the VAST majority of people, that's a load of BS.

No one is out for the "truth." Everyone is out for THEIR version of the "truth."
There will NEVER be a conclusion that satisfies everyone. If something doesn't agree with THEIR version of the "truth," it will be debated and debunked to no end whether it's really true or not. I can 100% guarantee this.


HAHA Thats really funny-I'm calling you out because you claim we are all sheep being misguided about the truth. So yeah I guess ATS is about covering up the truth no matter what anyone says. Thats why they get banned so fast. Uh oh they know the truth hurry and ban them.

Lets see how long it takes me to get banned.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Thats why its called a conspiracy theory. People bring up all these ideas to in hopes of explaining the unexplainable.


Which makes the official story a conspiracy theory also, like it or not.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leyla
HAHA Thats really funny-I'm calling you out because you claim we are all sheep being misguided about the truth. So yeah I guess ATS is about covering up the truth no matter what anyone says. Thats why they get banned so fast. Uh oh they know the truth hurry and ban them.

Lets see how long it takes me to get banned.


You completely failed to see what my post was about.

I only used your quote because that statement is thrown out there a lot. People are always claiming to be searching for the truth when in reality they are only seeking others who agree with their preconceived notion of what the truth is. The real truth could slap them in their face but they would argue to no end that's not the truth, simply because they don't want it to be.
JFK debates have gone on for what? Almost 40 years? I can guarentee you 40+ years from now the same 9/11 debates will be going on, as no answer will EVER satisfy everyone.

I'm not sure where you get off that I'm calling anyone sheep being misguided about the truth. I'm simply stating there are so many "truths" out there that the real truth may never be known. No....it probably will be know or IS known now, but since everything is questioned and not all will be satisfied the never ending debates will continue.

ATS covering up the truth? lol
What truth?



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Perhaps your right on the JFK debate- (My guess is he was killed by some secret society) but as long people continues to lie and cover up while throwing up smoke screens the truth will never been known.

This case has been reopened instead of debating over it how about watch which direction it goes for a change. I for one am glad this case has a chance.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Is this really an aluminum airplane with plastic nosecone
gliding effortlessly into a steel/concrete building, from nose to tail?

Did people really see this in person?







Perhaps it was just a...




[edit on 23-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Do you honestly think that the jetliner should have just crumpled up against the side of the tower and fallen to the ground? I suppose next you are going to say it wasnt a B-25 that smashed into the Empire State building? (after all, a B-25 was a little flimsier than a 767 or a 757 and going much slower. not to mention that the Empire State Building is a bit more robust than the WTC was. Using your logic there is no way in hell that a B-25 would penetrate into a building)

Better yet, lets consider the chunks of airliner found on the streets around the WTC site and on top of a couple of the buildings? How did they get there? A government truck pulling up and dropping the pieces off in front of the thousands of people there????



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I read this post at a related forum and really makes you think 2x's about the No Planes Theory.

progressiveindependent.com...

Check it!



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Well, I was with the statement right up until this point...


Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Yet it can be easily demonstrated, after a great deal of hard work by dedicated 9/11 researchers, that no planes hit the towers.


lmao. Yeah, I bet it did take a great deal of hard work...isn't any mention in here as to the honesty of the work, but I'm sure it was REALLY hard.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Do you honestly think that the jetliner should have just crumpled up against the side of the tower and fallen to the ground?


It's not the fact that it penetrated the building, it's the way it did, like into butter.
The B-25 did not go into the building, half of it was left sticking out. And the building didn't globally collapse. The empire state building is brick and concrete, the WTC tower was steel. Think about that.

Take the pentagon for example. Again concrete, yet the wings did not even make a mark and for some reason disappeared. So how do wings that won't go through concrete manage to go though thick steel columns like butter, and as we're told slice through massive central columns?



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Do you honestly think that the jetliner should have just crumpled up against the side of the tower and fallen to the ground? I suppose next you are going to say it wasnt a B-25 that smashed into the Empire State building? (after all, a B-25 was a little flimsier than a 767 or a 757 and going much slower. not to mention that the Empire State Building is a bit more robust than the WTC was. Using your logic there is no way in hell that a B-25 would penetrate into a building)


Do you honestly think the B-25 glided into the Empire State Building like a hot knife through butter?

I hope not.




Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Better yet, lets consider the chunks of airliner found on the streets around the WTC site and on top of a couple of the buildings? How did they get there? A government truck pulling up and dropping the pieces off in front of the thousands of people there????


Gotta give you credit on this one!

The government did NOT drop pieces in front of the thousands of people there.

What did they do???

They simply removed the scaffolding cover:







More photos here.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   


Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Yet it can be easily demonstrated, after a great deal of hard work by dedicated 9/11 researchers, that no planes hit the towers.


lmao. Yeah, I bet it did take a great deal of hard work...isn't any mention in here as to the honesty of the work, but I'm sure it was REALLY hard.



It must have been honest, since the Court didn't dismiss the case as frivolous.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn






Oops...that one is outside where the scaffolding cover would have been - so is the downed lightpole.

dratz.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuasiShaman
I read this post at a related forum and really makes you think 2x's about the No Planes Theory.

progressiveindependent.com...



That article doesn't debunk NPT/TV-Fakery. All it does is attempt to explain away a few minor points.

It does not address the impossible physics of an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding into steel girders and concrete slabs.


Here are the concrete slabs:

(after looking at this picture, watch the animinated gif a few posts back.)




posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Do you honestly think that the jetliner should have just crumpled up against the side of the tower and fallen to the ground?


It's not the fact that it penetrated the building, it's the way it did, like into butter.
The B-25 did not go into the building, half of it was left sticking out. And the building didn't globally collapse. The empire state building is brick and concrete, the WTC tower was steel. Think about that.

Take the pentagon for example. Again concrete, yet the wings did not even make a mark and for some reason disappeared. So how do wings that won't go through concrete manage to go though thick steel columns like butter, and as we're told slice through massive central columns?


Yes the Empire State IS brick, concrete and steel. It also has interior load bearing walls (which the Towers did not have). Thats a big reason why the B-25 did not penetrate farther in (also a reason why there wasnt a local collapse). But it did penetrate...flimsy aluminum...170 mph or so.....

So the 757 managed to penetrate the tower....figure out the mass, velocity etc......so why wouldnt it? Hell pieces of STRAW will go through trees given enough velocity.

As for the Pentagon...yes the wings and tail DID make impact marks on the facade of the Pentagon....



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Yes, they did leave impact marks. And it's a matter of load per square inch - which the masonry exterior decreases for both the Pentagon and the Empire State Building but not the WTC towers. The engines and wings of the plane that struck the Empire State Building continued on with such velocity that they were able to sever the cables of one of the elevators as they passed by. The Empire State Building impact was not a trivial issue. But the masonry exterior, along with a more distributed internal wall structure, assisted in minimizing the impact to the important elements of the building.

[edit on 8-23-2007 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Technology Review Magazine Discusses How the Military and TV Networks
Can Insert Prerecorded Images Into Live News Feed to Alter World Politics
in their July/August 2000 Article "Lying With Pixels":


forum.911movement.org...




[edit on 23-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]

[edit on 23-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   


It's not the fact that it penetrated the building, it's the way it did, like into butter.


Empire State exterior is quarried limestone about 8" thick, same material
from same quarry is used at the Pentagon. Taking fact that loaded
767 weighted about 15 x that of empty B25 and traveling at 3X the
velocity would generate over 100 x the energy. Think about why
they find straw driven into wood boards and trees after a tornado
Try that and will get nowhere - its the velocity which does it. At the
Pentagon the debris cloud and fireball of burning jet fuel acted like
a shaped charge warhead blasting holes through walls until lost
impetus.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Ok but velocity doesn't explain the differences in the planes impact at the towers and the pentagon. You can't just explain it all away by just saying it was the velocity. Sry but that does not explain why the wings didn't make a mark on the pentagoon, but managed to slice through construction steel in the towers.

Sry but your straw into wood analogy is not the same thing as a plane hitting a building. It's a phenomenon that hasn't yet been explained by science, and has nothing to do with velocity. One of the most excepted theories is during the tornado trees bend and create cracks that pieces of straw get stuck in. Another theory is that the straw gets electrically charged giving it a higher density, and when it flies out of the tornado and hits a less electrically charged tree.

So that said, now where does your theory stand?

Got any other of your 'scientific explanation' for concrete walls suddenly being stronger than construction steel?


I just wish you guys would do research before making wild claims. It took me all of 5 minutes to do this. That is really what we're asking, quit blindly believing stuff just because it seems to 'make sense'. The world is in a mess because people make too many wild assumptions and believe what they're told by authority figures.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You want to talk about people getting "government paychecks" being deceitful, Reynolds is a former Bush cabinet member, and also taught at Texas A&M where our current SoD came from. Is this going to set off paranoia for you, or are you looking the other way this time? Reynolds is eat up in disinformation.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by bsbray11]


well, is that true? if, then we can forget this case.it smells like a bought disInfo campagne.




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join