It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


On the fence

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 12:08 PM
I'm still on the fence as to what organizations were behind the tragic events of 911. But one thing, in my mind, is certain, regardless of who is behind it, the United States government still used the event to create fear, centralize power (by nearly doubling the size of the government), strip away many Constitutional rights through the passing of unconstitutional laws and acts, and justify a fraudulent war with a dictator and country that posed no eminent threat...

I've heard demolition experts and amateur debunkers alike bashing the idea of controlled demolition for various reasons, but have any of the experts ever seen a building demolished after it was hit with a plane? I think not... How could anyone, expert or not, know how a building that has been hit with a plane would look if it were demolished, its possible it would fall/fail in a completely different way than expected. Also, if you were a shadow government carrying out terrorist attacks and you needed to bring a building down through demolition, but didn't want it to look that way, wouldn't you demolish it in a way that made it look like a natural collapse (which might be made easier by the fact there was a plane flown into it, hours of fires, and a gaping hole in the tower)...

Larry Silverstein has said that his "pull it" comment was actually in reference to the firefighters, which is weird, unless he considers firefighters inanimate objects... Also, demolition experts keep coming forward about how "pull it" isn't a demolition term, SO WHAT! Like Larry Silverstein would go around speaking perfect "demolition expert", the guy doesn't demolish buildings for a living, is that a reason that he might use an improper term for a demolition, I think so... and if building 7 wasn't demolished, then its even more suspicious, because why on Earth would that building fall while other (some closer) buildings that sustained more damage and did not...

Also, on that 911 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction show (which I know there is a thread regarding, possibly several) they showed a graphic of the plane hitting the tower, it basically sliced through the steel columns like they were made of paper, then they tried to say that the wings broke off or folded back at the Pentagon, which is ridiculous. Why would a plane shear through steel support beams but lose its wings a few feet into the Pentagon, what is the Pentagon made of? Also they showed a graphic of the pentagon and the plane and as it hit they showed one of its wings in the air, in the blue sky above the Pentagon, yet its certainly not there on the video they released. They also tried to show that the circular hole was made by a fireball of a plane, seems to me that a plane which has essentially become an explosion is not going to maintain the shape of the plane, the explosion will explode outward as wide as it can go.

And, finally, Flight 93. Either the plane was shot down, or there was in fact a bomb on board that went off either before or as it crashed (which, imo, would correspond to the photo that woman took of the mushroom cloud). There is no way the debris field would be that big from just the plane hitting the dirt, even if it hit nose first straight down...

Well that's my two cents, I'm still not sure about all the details, but one thing is for sure, I've got an open mind, and I'm seeking the truth...


log in