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.

 

9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


I really appreciate it, but after going on seven years, I already have made up my mind.


This is nothing but a huge circle. pro-con-pro-con-pro-con.. etc etc etc

I have heard both sides. In the end, it would be impossible to have so many people involved in such a grand operation.

This is my belief forced on no one: Some people will always believe what they want to, regardless of how much evidence is put forward.

One good example is when several years ago I was talking to a Russian friend about WW2. The topic of Leningrad came up. She said over 4 million German troops died there. I replied that the number was exaggerated. There were not even a million Germans involved in the battle. The debate went on for some time when finally we came to the conclusion to agreed to disagree. That was after all the evidence was pointed out to her.

Where I'm coming from. If it's a cop-out, hey, then let people believe what they want to. After seven years going in a circle, enough time has been spent as far as I'm concerned. I like the PM article as it is good and factual.

People can take it or leave it as they want.




posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Midav

This is my belief forced on no one: Some people will always believe what they want to, regardless of how much evidence is put forward.


I would not have a problem with some people's comments, if they stopped at this point with the same or same type comment: "Some people will always believe what they want to." However, they too often continue to erroneously add this: "......regardless of how much evidence is put forward."

First, evidence has to prove something, and normally that is done with science testing, which cannot be disproved/refuted by peer review. In other words, all peers will arrive at the same result no matter which peers test the evidence.

When people fail to prove any evidence exists, it remains mere opinion. Everyone is entitled to opinion. However, they are not entitled to call anything "evidence", because it is what they chose to believe by opinion and nothing more.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Midav
 


Exactly.
Good post.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
And thusly any drive for truth is sucessfully aborted at conception.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 


Nope I get mad when someone passive aggressively and repeatedly calls me a stupid sheeple, very much intellentionally and I don't mean by disagreeing.
You can put whatever spin you want to make me look like a whiner. Which in the sense I am. But not in the capacity you accuse me of.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Not gonna sucker me in. Been there, done that too many times over the years. As said, this will just go in circles. Not an opnion, but it's a fact.

Thank you for your opinion, though!


WA: Thanks!!



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuhail
What kind of gain are you looking for? Everybody to align with your view only? This is a place where different theories are looked at and possibly combined to finish a puzzle to which we don't know what the picture is.


Here lies the problem my friend,

We do have the picture and it is the final events. Where people make their mistake is they take this final picture and work it backwards substituting random events of timing and infinite outcomes with planned/controlled events that lead to the final pictures. This is so much easier when you already know the outcome, but the probability factor starts to hit the 10^150 plus number of impossibility. As this happens more random events continually need to be removed to get the probability below that of impossible. One favorite is to totally remove the jets from the randomness of the events altogether and use unknown advance weaponry and equipment that is either secretly 100 years advanced or even simpler, alien technology.

This all causes an unlimited number of chaotic random events to continually spiral out of control, like where did the aircraft/people go? As other chaotic spirals continually split off from the effects of the inserted preplanned events they are quietly ignored, or if at any time they become bothersome then they are also replaced with more planned events. This is repeated until the chaotic spirals are so far removed from the reality of the event that they are no longer a factor.




[edit on 28-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


EXACTLY!

Star, agreed, and if I could applauded.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
You know what i had to stop reading the post and just want to reply cause everyone was chodin out on each other. I think everyone is loosing site of the discussion. Ill lay down what Ive heard from professionals. Listen do not attack the messenger cause you don't like the message.

Firstly the pentagon. according to official video of the terrorist that was supposed to be flying the Airplane.

If you reference the loose change video not the whole thing. Just the real flight record of the terrorist flight data when he flew and small single engine Cessna before reportedly flying the plane that hit the pentagon. His flying is all over the place he couldn't even fly a small airplane in a straight line for over 1 minute? What makes you think he can do a advanced maneuver according to the official story. In reenactments or trumped up 3d rendering of the official story. They don't show you the plane reportedly go near full throttle then he cut engine speed and do a 180 then goes over the highway into the pentagon.

So if you actually look at the official loose change video that has the real flight path of the terrorist when he was practicing before the pentagon flight. the instructor that was flying with him said I could not believe that this guy could even pull off this advanced maneuver. He could even fly a single engine prop plane straight.

Secondly the official story says the nose of the plane broke threw the wall. Everyone who takes flight class and or flight school. The nose of the planes are made up of composite material to break on impact. Also the turbines on these planes are made of metals with such a high heat point that they could not have just disappeared on Impact. also the engine each weigh about 5 to 6 TONS EACH. If these engines were to hit the buildings with such force and are made of near INDESTRUCTIBLE METALS with a heat point of somewhere over 5,000 degrees. Where are the imprints or remnants of them?

Not only do you not see any engines you don't see where they should have hit the pentagon? Also the biggest point If these engines thats are near indestructible Burnt up. Then how could they have re coved all the passengers dental remains which is how they say they new it was that flight cause they recovered everyones dental remains? dental cavity's burn up at around 600 degrees ???

Ill stop there for now see how many hate replies i get and go from there.



[edit on 28-1-2008 by kanesis]

Mod Edit: Excessive Redundant Characters.

[edit on 28/1/2008 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   


Two I happen to like and show that the collapses were FAR from tidy pre-planned affairs. You can see debris falling well all over the place.
On this one you will assuredly note the white plumes coming out the side of the tower just below what I will call the collapse line.
Not evidence to CD, but it stands to logic (to me) that the internal collapse would be happening far faster inside then what you could gauge from the outside collapse. Sorta like the center collapsing out type situation.
Otherwords just watch the videos with an open mind for any possiblity.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant




I have no idea if the second video you posted will work in the response. However, it is the second video, without playing it, to which I refer.

I must thank you for the above video. I works for me.

Please pay close attention to the condition of that steel, and then say again any alleged 767 going inside was able to push steel to the outside instead. Please note how clean cut and vertical so many of the vertical steel tubes remain. Then we have the areas which were not completely cut. Also, please note the absence of anything resembling 767 engines.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


If you watch his videos watch mine. This video has numerous professional airplane pilots and construction experts commenting through out the film along with people who were in the world trade centers 9/11


Google Video Link


for some reason im not embedding the code right heres the link

video.google.com...

[edit on 28-1-2008 by kanesis]

[edit on 28-1-2008 by kanesis]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
but it stands to logic (to me) that the internal collapse would be happening far faster inside then what you could gauge from the outside collapse. Sorta like the center collapsing out type situation.
Otherwords just watch the videos with an open mind for any possiblity.


This is in direct opposition to what the NIST states. They state the outers walls failed and the outer floor connections failed and they never state what the core columns did. I'm afraid you're speaking in opposition to the official report.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
If NIST considers the steel facade and perimeter primary load bearing tubes, attached to the outside "failing", while the inside of the buildings were almost completely molecularly disintigrating, and exploding the double exterior steel walls outward at the same time, then NIST has a strange concept of the word "failure of structural steel". They must make up their own definitions of industry terms as it whimsically suits them to do so.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars


Please pay close attention to the condition of that steel, and then say again any alleged 767 going inside was able to push steel to the outside instead. Please note how clean cut and vertical so many of the vertical steel tubes remain. Then we have the areas which were not completely cut. Also, please note the absence of anything resembling 767 engines.


Uhhhh...that picture you're talking about, it's an animation. It's not a real picture of the building.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 

Molecular disintigration.
Rrrrriiigggghhhhhtttttt.
As for the video has not made an argument I haven't seen before and disagree with.
For various reasons.
Here are is just one.
As a great number of psychologists will tell you eye witness testimony is generally crap.
For any of a great number of reasons.
1) 3 people see an event you will get 3 different stories.
2) Over time memories can and do change.
3) Memories are changed when we access them.


[edit on 28-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
If NIST considers the steel facade and perimeter primary load bearing tubes, attached to the outside "failing", while the inside of the buildings were almost completely molecularly disintigrating, and exploding the double exterior steel walls outward at the same time, then NIST has a strange concept of the word "failure of structural steel". They must make up their own definitions of industry terms as it whimsically suits them to do so.


I didn't say it made sense. I just said Mr. "let's accept the reports" is contradicting the official story. That's all.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 

'Truth-ism' is a religion, secure in the shared belief-system that 'it-was-an-inside-job.' There is no point engaging with someone whose position is so fixed that they are not looking for answers, and refuse to answer questions, because their mind is made up. 'If you don't BELIEVE IT, then you must be stupid!!!'


Yup. Exactly. And the real tragedy of the "Truth" movement is that IF the government allowed 9/11 to happen, either through complicity or incompetence, it will never, never, never, NEVER be exposed or brought to light. Because the "Truth" movement, by clinging to completely ridiculous and discredited theories such as the controlled demolition nonsense or micro-nukes or holographic planes or whatever, has created an environment where there's a huge stigma attached to questioning 9/11. Because anybody who's actually in a position to discover real evidence of wrongdoing or incompetence won't go anywhere near it for fear of being lumped in with people who believe something silly like the towers being brought down with thermite (or whatever wacky theory is the flavor of the day).

They've basically just shot themselves in the foot and ensured that the real truth, whatever it may be, will never come out.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Yeah, where did the "molecular disintegration" come from? Is some one speculating again?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by whiterabbit
 

I think the people that are guilty counted on this.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 



Ive no idea what you really want here, you want proof, proof of what? Scientific reports of why the towers fell, which has been done. Is that proof? Or just do you just accept what you want to believe?

The proof that planes hit the towers? Multiple witnesses, caught live on TV, is that proof for you?

The fact that there are Muslim extremists out there who despise the west and have made no bones about destroying us, is that proof?

Anyway, whats your proof?
Prove to me and everyone here that terrorist's didn't board those planes and fly them into the towers. Prove that a plane never hit the pentagon, prove that a plane never crashed in shanksville after the cockpit was bombarded by the passengers.

I personally don't know either way, but the "stout believers" get a hard time just because they accepted the facts that are in front of them. Whilst the CTs seem to get away with murder in my opinion. CTs only have theories that are tenuous at best, truthers are lambasted for accepting the official story. No one wins really.


I don't surf very much, but was tired of working tonight and came across this thread.

It is not so much to prove that they did not happen. I believe these events did happen. But I do not believe the official stories. They do not hold up to what I have observed while working in aviation for over 20 years. I will give you the fact that people boarded the airplanes and took them over. I belive 2 hit the WTC and 1 hit the pentagon. Here is where I have a bit of trouble.

First with the crash in PA. I have been around several crashs during my career. NOT ONE TIME, did a crew member or pilot land 8 miles from the crash site unless they left the airplane while it was still in the air. If the news reports that I read were correct, this happened in PA. So that tells me the plane broke up in flight or atleast had major structural failures. Did the US have the right or the duty to shot it down, I believe yes. If they did, then say so and not come up with some other explaination that just causes more doubt on their creditablity. Could it have been an terrist caused explosion, maybe. But either way it was in trouble while still in the air. There is more to this crash.

Pentagon. I have read that some think it was a missle and not a plane. I do not believe that. It was a plane and it did some major damage.

WTC. This is were it gets real interesting for me. Has anyone ever seen the way fighterfighters train for aircraft fires? They use a steel structure, fill it with jet fuel and then light it on fire. This structures last year and burn for hours at a time. And they look like crap, but they are NOT deformed. I do not know the numbers off the top of my head, I will not quote them here because someone will jump if I am 200 degree off, so you will need to research this on your own. But jet fuel will NOT burn hot enough to weaken steal. It just doesn't. If it did the firefighters would be replacing their training devices all the time. So their story loses creditablity with me. Second I have seen pictures and videos where you can see people standing in teh windows on the floor where the impact took place, if the fire was hot enough to weaken the steel, how is that possible?
One last thing. Remeber the picture of the firefighter standing in front of the beam that was standing up behind him? It was cut at a clean 45 degree angle. That picture was displayed how many times? Covers of magazines. A fire would not have cut it clean, according to them, it weakened, stretched and distorted and failed. That beam was not distorted, it was a clean 45 degree cut.

Did it happen? YES. Are they telling us the truth? I would say no



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join