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: 22
5
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Bon appétit:

www.americanantigravity.com...

www.gravitymagnet.com...

Then you, if so chose to do so, research the physical realities of black holes and how they are naturally formed. Same principle as the sophisticate lab built tech currently available.




posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


The first link doesn't work.
The second link sells capacitors and tesla coils. What are you getting at with this info?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I have no problem with either link. I just tested it off my own post. I use IE. If you are familiar with the work, as you indicated in your post, the sites are self-explanatory. Do you also want a link to Max Planck Institute, or do you prefer to look for it yourself?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


I have no problem with either link. I just tested it off my own post. I use IE. If you are familiar with the work, as you indicated in your post, the sites are self-explanatory. Do you also want a link to Max Planck Institute, or do you prefer to look for it yourself?


Well I would like to narrow down what you would like me to look for. Specifically what are you claiming. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


When you said you were familiar with Einstein's work, that strongly implied you understood his work. Is that not the case? If it is the case, I, nor anyone else, should have narrow anything down for you. It would become self-evident when you reveiw both websites.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


When you said you were familiar with Einstein's work, that strongly implied you understood his work. Is that not the case? If it is the case, I, nor anyone else, should have narrow anything down for you. It would become self-evident when you reveiw both websites.


Prior to me saying that, what were you referring to?? I am trying to understand what you were posting so I can properly respond.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


If some people did not spend so much time deliberately deflecting, they would not have such a difficult time following discussions. Does the following help you to catch up and follow your own discussion and responses now?

jfj123
#posted on 13-1-2008 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by WraothAscendant

You're forgetting my personal favorite. ANTI-MATTER BOMBS 


=========================================
OrionStars
#posted on 15-1-2008 @ 02:54 PM
reply to post by jfj123

Obviously, you are not familiar with the work of Einstein, Tesla, Planck, Hutchinson and others known as research and development in anti-gravity and electro-magnetic energy. The same quantum principle causing stars to implode in on themselves to effect black holes. Yes, the lab tech is well tested, ready for use - military and otherwise, available for use, and has been for quite some time.

============================================
jfj123
#posted on 15-1-2008 @ 06:18 PM
Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123


Obviously, you are not familiar with the work of Einstein, Tesla, Planck, Hutchinson and others known as research and development in anti-gravity and electro-magnetic energy. The same quantum principle causing stars to implode in on themselves to effect black holes. Yes, the lab tech is well tested, ready for use - military and otherwise, available for use, and has been for quite some time.



Actually I'm very familiar with Einsteins work 

Please post proof that the "lab tech is well tested and ready for use and has been for quite some time".
I and anxiously awaiting your proof. Thank you in advance for posting the information.

==========================
OrionStars
#posted on 15-1-2008 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by jfj123

Bon appétit:

www.americanantigravity.com...

www.gravitymagnet.com...

Then you, if so chose to do so, research the physical realities of black holes and how they are naturally formed. Same principle as the sophisticate lab built tech currently available.

============================
jfj123
#posted on 15-1-2008 @ 06:46 PM
reply to post by OrionStars

The first link doesn't work.
The second link sells capacitors and tesla coils. What are you getting at with this info?


============================
OrionStars
#posted on 15-1-2008 @ 06:54 PM
reply to post by jfj123

I have no problem with either link. I just tested it off my own post. I use IE. If you are familiar with the work, as you indicated in your post, the sites are self-explanatory. Do you also want a link to Max Planck Institute, or do you prefer to look for it yourself?

================================
jfj123
#posted on 15-1-2008 @ 07:03 PM

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123


I have no problem with either link. I just tested it off my own post. I use IE. If you are familiar with the work, as you indicated in your post, the sites are self-explanatory. Do you also want a link to Max Planck Institute, or do you prefer to look for it yourself?



Well I would like to narrow down what you would like me to look for. Specifically what are you claiming. Thanks.

=============================================
OrionStars
#posted on 15-1-2008 @ 07:14 PM
reply to post by jfj123

When you said you were familiar with Einstein's work, that strongly implied you understood his work. Is that not the case? If it is the case, I, nor anyone else, should have narrow anything down for you. It would become self-evident when you reveiw both websites.

===============================
jfj123
#posted on 15-1-2008 @ 08:34 PM

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

When you said you were familiar with Einstein's work, that strongly implied you understood his work. Is that not the case? If it is the case, I, nor anyone else, should have narrow anything down for you. It would become self-evident when you reveiw both websites.



Prior to me saying that, what were you referring to?? I am trying to understand what you were posting so I can properly respond.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

I can. It's called the NIST final report. Thanks for asking


Its just too bad that NIST is not the main investigator for 9/11. NIST was only asked to do some reports for the 9/11 commission, which they did not agree with or publish all the NIST findings.

In case you did not know the FBI and the NTSB are the main investigators for 9/11.

Also it have been proven that NIST has made mistakes, like not testing the steel for explosives or chemicles from the towers and not recovering steel from building 7 to test.



[edit on 16-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:01 AM
link   
NIST never told us what was on floor 81 .....

www.rense.com...

From the article:
"Sixteen and a half minutes after the first impact, five hijackers flew United Airlines (UA) Flight 175, with 9 crew and 51 passengers, into WTC 2 at about 540 mph, about 100 mph faster than AA Flight 11," the NIST report says.

"The center of the nose of the plane struck at the 81st floor slab. The plane was banked 38 degrees to the left (right wing upward) and was heading slightly (6 degrees) downward from the horizontal," it says.
Although Flight 175 went straight into the 81st floor of the south tower, the NIST report provides no description of what was on the 81st floor. Not even one word. How odd.

While we know that the Fuji Bank was the tenant on floors 79-82 of WTC 2, the NIST report fails to describe the "tenant layout" of floors 79, 81, and 82.

I had repeatedly requested information from NIST about the layout of these floors, primarily because many tons of molten metal were seen falling from the 81st floor prior to the collapse."

This is HUGE news in my opinion.

watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:52 AM
link   
All that flooring and all that double steel wall supposedly knocked inside, and not an iota of it looks to have ended up inside or outside WTC 1. Not even a trace of a plane that could only enter 59' at the length side of the core and 35' on the width side of the core before meeting all that steel at that the center core. Not to mention all that steel on the interior office walls before getting to the center core double steel.

Yet, a woman managed to stand in the hole of WTC 1 (remember all that raging fuel fire). How did she get there without climbing over sections of double steel wall (unseen), chunks of concrete and trusses (unseen) having dropped along with the major portions of reinforced concrete holding rebar (unseen) from upper floors?

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

911research.wtc7.net...

That would never happen in the world of real buildings being dropped in part or whole.

All that clean cut steel. It is impossible to tell if it was impacted in or out, it is so clean cut and so vertical.

Those are the same pictures all over the Internet. Some with a woman standing there, and many others a woman is not standing there. Everything else in appearance is the same.

That is not even a plane shape. I have no idea how some people consider that an "exact plane shape cut out for a 767".



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


If some people did not spend so much time deliberately deflecting, they would not have such a difficult time following discussions. Does the following help you to catch up and follow your own discussion and responses now?

Why is sarcasm necessary? I asked a legitimate question and now I'm going to show you why I was confused. You'll notice below I mentioned anti-matter bombs. You immediately jump into anti-gravity and electromagnetic. Not the same subject. OOPS! Maybe if you didn't spend so much time deliberately deflecting, you wouldn't have misread anti-matter and think it was anti-gravity??



jfj123
#posted on 13-1-2008 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by WraothAscendant

You're forgetting my personal favorite. ANTI-MATTER BOMBS 

=========================================
OrionStars
#posted on 15-1-2008 @ 02:54 PM
reply to post by jfj123

Obviously, you are not familiar with the work of Einstein, Tesla, Planck, Hutchinson and others known as research and development in anti-gravity and electro-magnetic energy. The same quantum principle causing stars to implode in on themselves to effect black holes. Yes, the lab tech is well tested, ready for use - military and otherwise, available for use, and has been for quite some time.

============================================
jfj123
#posted on 15-1-2008 @ 06:18 PM
Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

I mentioned anti-matter bombs as you can see above.
You are mentioning anti-gravity, electro-magnetic energy.

I then asked you to post proof of your statement hoping I would see the connection between my statement and yours. Instead you posted a link that didn't work at the time and another link selling tesla coils and capacitors.
You claimed that the military had some kind of anti-gravity and electromagnetic weapons which they have had for some time. I am of course aware of a few type of energy weapons but not anti-gravity.

I am now asking you to prove your statements. Please don't post a link and tell me to go read. Post the info as a summary and the link as source material like a good researcher would do.

I am also familiar with black holes and since you brought them up, please tell me specifically what they have to do with this conversation.

thanks.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Perhaps before making any further snide remarks against what people investigate involving 9/11, you should learn the terms against which you are being snide. If you read the article, you will not have to ask me again how what I wrote ties into your term "antimatter bomb".

Anti-matter:

www.sciam.com...

"What is antimatter?

R. Michael Barnett of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Helen Quinn of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center offer this answer, portions of which are paraphrased from their book The Charm of Strange Quarks:

In 1930 Paul Dirac formulated a quantum theory for the motion of electrons in electric and magnetic fields, the first theory that correctly included Einstein's theory of special relativity in this context. This theory led to a surprising prediction�the equations that described the electron also described, and in fact required, the existence of another type of particle with exactly the same mass as the electron but with positive instead of negative electric charge. This particle, which is called the positron, is the antiparticle of the electron, and it was the first example of antimatter."



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


Perhaps before making any further snide remarks against what people investigate involving 9/11, you should learn the terms against which you are being snide. If you read the article, you will not have to ask me again how what I wrote ties into your term "antimatter bomb".

Anti-matter:

www.sciam.com...


You did not provide the above link until just now so how could I have previously read it?



"What is antimatter?

R. Michael Barnett of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Helen Quinn of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center offer this answer, portions of which are paraphrased from their book The Charm of Strange Quarks:

In 1930 Paul Dirac formulated a quantum theory for the motion of electrons in electric and magnetic fields, the first theory that correctly included Einstein's theory of special relativity in this context. This theory led to a surprising prediction�the equations that described the electron also described, and in fact required, the existence of another type of particle with exactly the same mass as the electron but with positive instead of negative electric charge. This particle, which is called the positron, is the antiparticle of the electron, and it was the first example of antimatter."



Yes, I'm familiar with anti-matter. I'm also familiar with ice cream. Unless you can post a cohesive message, I don't know what to do with this information.

There is a difference between anti-matter and electromagnetic fields. As opposed to me looking up links and guessing what you're talking about simply say what you are talking about. If you mean that the government has anti-matter bombs, say the government has anti-matter bombs. I would also suggest you provide evidence as you will be asked for it eventually.

I'm not sure why you simply can't post in a civil manor and post what you're talking about instead of trying to get people to either guess what you mean or do your work for you.



[edit on 16-1-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


That is because with all your touted knowledge, I did not realize I had to provide anything else for you. The link you claim was not working was working just fine and still is. Perhaps it is your computer program giving you the problem instead.

Since you boasted being so knowledgeable pertaining to Einstein's work, why did you have to ask me for anything at all?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


That is because with all your touted knowledge, I did not realize I had to provide anything else for you. The link you claim was not working was working just fine and still is. Perhaps it is your computer program giving you the problem instead.

Since you boasted being so knowledgeable pertaining to Einstein's work, why did you have to ask me for anything at all?


1. I simply stated the link was not working when I clicked on it. There may have been server issues between my ISP and the site, high site usage at the time, DDos attack, etc... preventing me from contacting the site. Did I ever claim that you gave me a bad site??? NO. I simply stated the link was not working.
2. Yes I am familiar with Einsteins work. That doesn't give me the ability to know what you're thinking about it or anything else. Also, I never "boasted" anything only stated that I had knowledge in the area you mentioned. If you consider my statement to be boastful you must include yourself in that little snipe.

That being said, you still, at no point have ever told me what you were talking about. As I am not psychic, I need to have the information presented in another format-preferably written. I can only assume at this point that you really have no information to post or you would have already posted it to prove your point. Instead, you are trying to divert attention away from that fact that you have nothing of substance to post by insulting me and others simply asking you to back up what you have said with factual data. Please prove me wrong and post the info.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Sublime620
 




To accept the official report is the same as accepting this at face value. Anyone capable of operating a Volkswagon, can automatically satisfactorily operate a fully loaded 18 wheeler under any and all conditions. That simply does not happen.



So are you saying if you took control of the 18 wheeler while it was moving (as the planes were) you couldn't steer it into a target that was say 70ft wide? A target that you could also see from a great distance?

Of course you could, what a daft analogy.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by thesneakiod]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


If you did understand Einstein's work, you would not be asking me to explain Einstein's work. That is what you keep deliberately deflecting in doing. You are determined not to prove the "official" reports and make logical sense of them. You are relying on nothing but red herring and ad hominems against opponents, in order to avoid doing that. So are the others arguing from your side not ours.

It is back to the topic, and you are responsible for making logical sense of the "official" reports. Are you going to do that at this point or not? The topic is for your side's benefit to logically explain it not ours.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 


Trying to maneuvering an unloaded or loaded trailer when the part driving it is out of control under high speed. What do you think would happen under those conditions? It is a simple question so you can answer your own question, rather than relying on others to answer it for you.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 


Losing control of bulk and weight is losing control of bulk and weight under any conditions. The higher the velocity, weight and mass the greater the proportional loss of control relative to weight, mass, and velocity. Rather than making some thoughtless comment of an analogy being "daft", perhaps you better bone up on a remedial course in physics instead.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


If you did understand Einstein's work, you would not be asking me to explain Einstein's work.

Now you're just getting funny
)
I am not asking you to explain Einsteins work
)
I am asking you to explain YOURS
)


That is what you keep deliberately deflecting in doing.

I'm not deflecting anything
)
I am simply asking a question about a statement you made
)


You are determined not to prove the "official" reports and make logical sense of them. You are relying on nothing but red herring and ad hominems against opponents, in order to avoid doing that. So are the others arguing from your side not ours.

)

OK it's obvious you can't answer the question
)
I honestly hope you know better and are just screwing with me because if not....
Well have you ever heard the phrase
If I (orion) used my brain more, my back would hurt less
It's an old builders saying
So if you're not kidding, I'll see you on the construction site
)

I must say however, your responses are VERY entertaining so maybe standup is in your future also


[edit on 16-1-2008 by jfj123]




top topics



 
5
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join