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.

 

To all Believers of the Official Story:

page: 13
5
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


The principles are the same. No one is going use a semi rig simulator, and then expertly maneuver a fully loaded 18-wheeler. What is about these law of nature principles you do not understand?




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Then all you continue to tell us, is that you have no clue as to how actual investigations are conducted, in order to convince a court of law someone is either guilty or innocent of a crime.

The same applies to investigations of all crime scenes, including that occurring on 9/11/2001. Photos of unknown origin and conflicting eyewitness accounts, coupled with no positive ID on planes, plus, plus absence of bodies and their belongings, would get a case thrown out of court before it ever gets there.

Legally, a person is normally not declared dead, unless a body or remains are positively ID'd and confirmed by other peers. It is a safeguard against corruption science dictates must be done. Then people have to go to court to have those people declared dead, particularly if life insurance and other estate assets are involved.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I think he means the conspiracy you are referring to. The fact that the government is covering up "something". This would make them complicit.


I never stated the government is covering up anything.

We do not have the reports and evidnece we should have, they have not been released. Also FOIA request have been denied that does not mean cover up right away.

The only thing about the government is that i believe they had enough warnings and did nothing to stop it.



[edit on 8-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by jfj123
You'll notice that almost everyone in, around or near must be involved in the conspiracy if ultima is right
Thats a lot of real quiet people


I have stated such in as theses conspiracies grow so does the branches of all who would need to be involved and the exponentially difficulty level ever increasing to pull it off.

It is kind of like the NWO as in if you are not on their side already in the know then you are part of a very small minority left in the world.


Personally, I believe 9-11 is immaterial to truthers. Hear me out on this: I think 9-11 is merely the force that binds otherwise unrelated political issues together. The real issue is George Bush and far, far left political bias. Truthers aren't really interested in evidence. What they are interested in is validation of their view of the world. Which, at it's basis is burning political agendas.

In my opinion, truthers have no interest in intellectual honesty. That's why you can not reason with them. No amount of evidence, no amount of logic, no amount of investigations, no matter how many resources are devoted they will never believe the massive, overwhelming evidence that does not support their claims.

That's because 9-11 is not what were are actually talking about. What truthers are really looking for is evidence that supports their (IMO) paranoid political thinking. That's why the bullseye is always moving, changing and evolving for them. Most, not all, spend their time demanding that we disprove their claims. Why? Because they can't possibly prove they are true. But what they can do is poke holes and look for vacuums in the correct story and site those vacuums as evidence of their theories. Of course, there are always vacuums in tragic events like 9-11. This vacuum is where conspiracy theories live and breed. BY demanding you fill in the blanks, rather than provide any evidence that what they say has even a shred of truth, keeps them "in the game" and presents the fallacy that we are all on equal footing.

For goodness sakes, even the Loose Change fraud has seen .....what....four revisions now? Even those clowns can't stand the heat on the no-plane nonsense.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Just wondering if you might find the time to address the various questions I asked of you?

I thought the video you linked to was funny, but had absolutely nothing to do with the questions I asked.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I am not surprised. Because no one has any photos or videos of any 757 actually impacting and going through the Pentagon and rings as reported in any "official" reports. But did you not find the entire article and the photos highly interesting, in comparison to the "official" reports claiming what they cannot prove, and never intended to prove to substantiate the Bush administration's case?


This is a perfect example of a vacuum. Because photos don't exist, as OrionStars demands, doesn't mean a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Conversely, if clear pictures did exist, he wouldn't believe them anyway and he would find another vacuum in which to make claims.

The overwhelming evidence as presented by thousands of professional who were there at the time of impact, worked the accident after and the eyewitnesses who saw the plane with their own eyes indicates a plane did, in fact, impact the Pentagon.

The thing reasonable people have to do is look at the preponderance of evidence (which IMO is positively overwhelming).



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


"In my opinion, truthers have no interest in intellectual honesty. That's why you can not reason with them. No amount of evidence, no amount of logic, no amount of investigations, no matter how many resources are devoted they will never believe the massive, overwhelming evidence that does not support their claims. "Text

If you say that, you don't particularly sound like a unbiased person that can be reasoned with yourself.
If you would hold the official story to the same standards, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on either. Were's your proof that the official story is correct?

f 911 was a non-inside job, and there were no loose ends, why would we, and millions of others, be talking on the internet everyday about this? Why are you here right now? Ever think about that?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


You are kidding right? Posting that website to bolster your argument? I will admit, it cherry picks really well from the quotes given by military personnell. Of course its full of crap with some of its "questions"




If the fire was caused by jet fuel, then why were firefighters spraying water?


Umm because you DO use water, normally high velocity fog. Been there, done that, have the scars to show for it.





Why are there unbroken windows so close to the point of impact?


Because they were designed to be explosion resistant....

I mean come on, if you are going to use a website, at least use one that isnt so blatant with its BS and cherry picking....



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


That is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. However, you not entitled to be wrong in facts.

When you can prove the "official" reports carry truth, which would pass the acid test of being tried in an unbiased, honest court of law, that is when you can gloat and say, "We have the truth and you don't. The court ruled as such." Until then, you have no entitlement to tell anyone else you have the truth, and they have none.

You only have the truth if the laws of nature, in the case of 9/11/2001, tell you that you have the truth. First of all, you have to know what they are and how they work. That includes understanding the practical application study of the laws and theories of quantum mechanics. You have not projected you understand any of it.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I have no idea to what website you refer.

You jump off to water use on oil based fuel fires and agree it should be used. Why?

You jump into "High velocity fog" whatever that is.

Then you jump off to broken windows made to be explosion resistant.

What is your relevant point? Nothing in your post indicates you have one.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Which link to any video link was that? I have linked in several videos in various discusssions.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Look, I have notice that you have a particular pattern of deflecting attention to question when you have no possibility of answer them, or they completely contradict you theories.

There is no point of having a discussion with you on those grounds, you come here promoting the propaganda that have been debunk time and time again from other websites and refuse to answer questions.

Is really pathethic and annoying. You clearly don't seem to understand what this site is for, I will suggest you to open your own website, since you are only willing to accept whatever favors your view as undeniable truth or facts.



[edit on 9-1-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 



Isn't that an ironic projection from you? That has been exactly my observation, of what you and your side so redundantly do to your opponents.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
You jump off to water use on oil based fuel fires and agree it should be used. Why?

You jump into "High velocity fog" whatever that is.

I know the question wasn't directed at me but I'd just like to confirm the use of 'fog nozzle' fire hoses as standard equipment for fighting flammable liquid type fires. The way it works is by producing a dense cloud of atomised water to smother the fire by excluding air and cooling it without dispersing the burning liquid. We have them in high voltage switchyards for fighting transformer oil type fires and they're very effective at it. The lack of a solid stream minimises the chance of a conductive path in the fog when used on live equipment.

Wikipedia says it best in 500 words or less:


A fog nozzle is a firefighting hose nozzle that breaks the water that flows through it into tiny droplets of water. The theory is that small droplets of water create more surface area than a solid stream created by a smooth bore nozzle. The water adsorbs the heat, turns into steam, and displaces the oxygen, smothering the fire. With the increase of surface area, this job is done quicker.


No conspiracy there.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Bunch, I would like to respond to your remark about the socalled wild no-plane theory in Shanksville, were flight 93 suposedly chrashed.
I've got the mayor of Shanksville, Ernie Stull saying, on tv, on the day of 911, that, and I quote: "There was no plane".
Was he the first CT-nut, on the actual day it took place?

This footage was in the movie "911mysteries", wich I recommended to you a few days ago, and you said you watched that movie.
Did you miss that part?

Why are you still claiming that the Shanksville no-plane theory is ridiculous, when it obviously has merit?

And it doesn't really matter if there were planes or not, there is so much more evidence that is not "outthere", that shows 911 was an inside job.

You keep bringing up holograms etc. to discredit CT's as a whole, but that's not fair. Nobody but you has even brought it up in this thread and you can't dismiss every CT, because some of em are hard to believe, or untrue.

[edit on 9/1/08 by enigmania]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Well I understand wetting everything down to prevent spreading of fire. But putting out jet fuel fires out with water? Never happen.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Here is a link to an interview with mayor Ernie Stull of Shanksville. This wasn't made on 911, but afterwards. I'm not sure if it is a different piece of footage as what I just talked about in my previous post. I could have been mistaken when I said the mayor said this on 911.
However, he does very clearly say, multiple times, "There was no plane".
Also other witnessess are heard and pictures are shown.

Please explain or debunk this:

www.ifilm.com...

[edit on 9/1/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 9/1/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 9/1/08 by enigmania]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Well I understand wetting everything down to prevent spreading of fire. But putting out jet fuel fires out with water? Never happen.

Trust me, it works and works well.
Other options would be foam and dry powder (actually baking soda)

Airports are more likely to encounter pure jet fuel fires so they're equipped with aqueous foam firefighting trucks to deal with it even more effectively than fog nozzles. What comprises 99% of aqueous foam?

The advantage of fog is not requiring emulsifiers, surfactants, glycol compounds to be added, simply connect to any hydrant and you're ready to go with just a hose and nozzle and perhaps a pump if the pressure is too low - fog requires about 100psi minimum to work effectively.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


Are you saying 767s are flown by remote control?

No I am in no way implying this.


Other than that, why are pilots paid the big bucks if 767s are so "fully automated"? The airlines could save a great deal of money allowing the planes to fly themselves.

I never said they were fully automated. I said they were highly automated. Please don't put words in my mouth.


Regardless, of what others have stated, flight simulators in no way replace the actual conditions of flying or driving. That is why they are called virtual reality simulators.

Do you have any information about what flight experience the terrorists had? If you do, please post it and we'll go from there.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Bunch
 


Where is the evidece that proves any planes actually hit anything? Huge fireballs and smoke blocking everyone's vision is not proof any planes hit anything.

Photos, videos, eyewitness reports.
Please don't start that hologram garbage as it's not technologically possible.


I can see where people would think that happened, considering they say they saw planes headed in that direction. However, there is not enough physical evidential proof stating that is what actually happened. There is no physcial evidence any passengers or luggage were on any planes alleged to have impacted anything.

Everyone has seen the videos of planes hitting the buildings.


If people want us to believe passengers were on any alleged planes, then please provide enough physical evidence, which proves that beyond a reasonable doubt. Passenger lists are no proof. The only proof of questioning families is alleged passengers' families swear they believe their loved ones are deceased due to airplane crashes.

Oh come on


How many funerals for alleged airplane passengers actually took place? Or were they memorial services instead? Memorial services normally mean the deceased was declared dead but body or remains never found and returned.

OK so where do you think the people are?


If it were me, in the case of 9/11, and someone showed up at my door with unrecognizable remains, I would ask how I know that is my loved one. I would insist on testing at the lab of my choice, to ensure I am actually accepting the remains of my loved one(s), and not someone else's loved one or Bambi's mother etc.

Again, so where are those people?




top topics



 
5
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join