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 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Check this out...An un common but do-able "top down "demolision and you will see the similarities



www.liveleak.com...



[edit on 19-3-2008 by gmac1000]




posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by gmac1000
 


remarkably similar! Thanks for posting that!



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
One example. (Sorry no video evidence) Marvin Bush worked for Securacom now Stratesec (the company that provided security for the WTC buildings) from 1993 to 2002. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks prior to the attacks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower." Marvin Bush also had a fortunate change of venue for a September 11 business conference. This is rarely if ever talked about. Why? I'd say the Securacom connection is of the utmost importance. Its a connection that is thoroughly overlooked. My question would be, what evidence is there that would make you not believe in a conspiracy?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ownlife
One example. (Sorry no video evidence) Marvin Bush worked for Securacom now Stratesec (the company that provided security for the WTC buildings) from 1993 to 2002. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks prior to the attacks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower." Marvin Bush also had a fortunate change of venue for a September 11 business conference. This is rarely if ever talked about. Why? I'd say the Securacom connection is of the utmost importance. Its a connection that is thoroughly overlooked. My question would be, what evidence is there that would make you not believe in a conspiracy?


This is interesting if it is true. I'm not saying that I don't believe that you believe that it is true but, this is a good example of my previous point. Can you actually post evidence to prove what you're saying is true? Again, please understand that I am in no way calling you a lier or anything of the like but I always like to see solid evidence to back up statements so we all all know they are more then opinion. Thank you for understanding



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Ownlife
One example. (Sorry no video evidence) Marvin Bush worked for Securacom now Stratesec (the company that provided security for the WTC buildings) from 1993 to 2002. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks prior to the attacks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower." Marvin Bush also had a fortunate change of venue for a September 11 business conference. This is rarely if ever talked about. Why? I'd say the Securacom connection is of the utmost importance. Its a connection that is thoroughly overlooked. My question would be, what evidence is there that would make you not believe in a conspiracy?


This is interesting if it is true. I'm not saying that I don't believe that you believe that it is true but, this is a good example of my previous point. Can you actually post evidence to prove what you're saying is true? Again, please understand that I am in no way calling you a lier or anything of the like but I always like to see solid evidence to back up statements so we all all know they are more then opinion. Thank you for understanding



It is very much true...The bush family have many fingers in many pies...And i believe that article is on Wikipedia for all to see...I thought the contract ended on september 11th though, for the WTC and Dullas



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
For the 1,345,890,999th time on ATS. Marvin Bush stepped down from the board of directors of Securacom in June 2000. Before his brother was either the President or even the Republican nominee for President.

Nor was Securacom "in charge" of WTC security. The WTC had its own security, which was run by former FBI Agent John O'Neill.

The bomb sniffing dogs that were removed from the WTC were EXTRAS that had been assigned there. The normal bomb sniffing dogs were on duty at the WTC that day.

What other misconceptions were there in that post....oh yes, the "power down from the 50th floor up" First, BOTH towers died that day (so when was the other one powered down) Second, the man responsible for this idea, Scott Forbes, has admitted that the only floors that he could verify were partially powered down..were the THREE floors his company had. In other words, instead of the "complete" power down that is tossed around by conspiracy theorists, you have a three floor PARTIAL power down.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Thank you very much for clearing that up. That's why I keep asking people to post data to back up what they say. Most of the time, people read info 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5000th hand and assume what they read was legit and although well meaning, unknowingly pass along bad info.

Thanks again



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Ownlife
One example. (Sorry no video evidence) Marvin Bush worked for Securacom now Stratesec (the company that provided security for the WTC buildings) from 1993 to 2002. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks prior to the attacks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower." Marvin Bush also had a fortunate change of venue for a September 11 business conference. This is rarely if ever talked about. Why? I'd say the Securacom connection is of the utmost importance. Its a connection that is thoroughly overlooked. My question would be, what evidence is there that would make you not believe in a conspiracy?


This is interesting if it is true. I'm not saying that I don't believe that you believe that it is true but, this is a good example of my previous point. Can you actually post evidence to prove what you're saying is true? Again, please understand that I am in no way calling you a lier or anything of the like but I always like to see solid evidence to back up statements so we all all know they are more then opinion. Thank you for understanding


Just type "Marvin Bush Securacom" in any search engine and I guarantee you will have a plethora of credible sources to choose from. Not to sound like a jerk myself, but I'm sick of trying to prove what I believe to others. I'll never ask anyone on here to present me with a source unless I personally can't find anything on the subject. Again I say this with the utmost respect.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Thank you very much for clearing that up. That's why I keep asking people to post data to back up what they say. Most of the time, people read info 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5000th hand and assume what they read was legit and although well meaning, unknowingly pass along bad info.

Thanks again


Where was the "data" he posted? What were his sources for the information he provided? I see no links to any sources, just a "theory" from a "debunker."

The only reason you accepted what he said, was because it fit the mindset you were already in. The exact same thing you crucify "9/11 truthers" for doing.

Pathetic.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to gmac1000post by gmac1000
 


Hey cool glad one was new. Which one ? And any thoughts on the other sites??Have U searched them to in the past ?? Just wondering



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
For the 1,345,890,999th time on ATS. Marvin Bush stepped down from the board of directors of Securacom in June 2000. Before his brother was either the President or even the Republican nominee for President.

Nor was Securacom "in charge" of WTC security. The WTC had its own security, which was run by former FBI Agent John O'Neill.

The bomb sniffing dogs that were removed from the WTC were EXTRAS that had been assigned there. The normal bomb sniffing dogs were on duty at the WTC that day.

What other misconceptions were there in that post....oh yes, the "power down from the 50th floor up" First, BOTH towers died that day (so when was the other one powered down) Second, the man responsible for this idea, Scott Forbes, has admitted that the only floors that he could verify were partially powered down..were the THREE floors his company had. In other words, instead of the "complete" power down that is tossed around by conspiracy theorists, you have a three floor PARTIAL power down.


Oh come on now. Lets just say a cool 2.000.000.000. I don't know how to post links but here is something for you to copy & paste. tribes.tribe.net...
Stratesec did have a contract to do security at the World Trade Centers as well as Dulles International Airport and United Airlines. And remember, United had two planes crash on 9-11, and one of those planes came from Dulles. Now an interesting note about SecuraCom is that from 1993 to 2000, one of its principle shareholders and directors was none other than Marvin Bush, the president's younger brother. And yes my appologies. Marvin Bush's last year on the board at Stratesec in 2000 coincided with his first year on the board of HCC Insurance, formerly Houston Casualty Co., one of the insurance carriers for the WTC. He left the HCC board in November 2002.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to Ownlifepost by Ownlife
 


I agree. If U have done your own research you can usualy tell by chatting with them ,if they have done thiers ,just by the questions they ask.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Ownlife
 


I absolutely respect your position. Like I've stated before, what I'm trying to do is make sure the information that is posted is as reliable as possible so we don't need to keep re-inventing the wheel.

Thank you for your responses.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Thank you very much for clearing that up. That's why I keep asking people to post data to back up what they say. Most of the time, people read info 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5000th hand and assume what they read was legit and although well meaning, unknowingly pass along bad info.

Thanks again


Where was the "data" he posted? What were his sources for the information he provided? I see no links to any sources, just a "theory" from a "debunker."

The only reason you accepted what he said, was because it fit the mindset you were already in. The exact same thing you crucify "9/11 truthers" for doing.

Pathetic.


Actually I'm sorry I wasn't clear regarding his post. I used his post as a point that you have one person saying something then another person saying the exact opposite.

I always request and recommend anyone posting anything that isn't opinion, they post source reference material. I looked back on my post regarding this and yes, it did seem biased and I apologize for the lack of clarity.

To whomever posts here and makes statement as fact, please post source reference for verification purposes.

I will say that I've seen plenty of swampfoxes posts in other threads and they were very well written and reliable with sources so based on that I did indeed take him at his word. It had nothing to do with the fact that his post agreed with my personal views.


[edit on 19-3-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 19-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Whether he had actually posted links or “data” is moot… links & statements by plenty of professionals, scientists & officials have been posted repeatedly here on ATS but are drastically out numbered or overshadowed by the conspiracy theories. We are all here on the site voluntarily, hopefully to learn different viewpoints, but back down off your high horses. It’s understandable and obvious that CTers are given a wider berth here, but half literate ex cop being asked questions by spoiled punk kids with a camcorder isn’t and shouldn’t be admirable. A creditable source is not a website run by a guy in his basement or a bunch of college students bored with their semester. I continue to be amazed at the willingness of people on this site to toss common sense & science out the window on a single quote (normally out of context) or a YouTube video.

I’ve said it before and history proves over & over that most conspiracies grow out of ignorance which breeds from the passing of time. The more time passes the more people discard the facts. Not prove them wrong, not discover contrary ones, but the mundane facts are actually discarded in favor of the more sensational half truths & misunderstandings.

Maybe people should ask themselves why they favor fringe views (Sean Penn) over more reputable sources (the vast majority of Scientific/Professional/Creditable people). Until then many of us are just waiting for any evidence, that passes rational, scientific tests, from rational, creditable sources.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Jake the Dog Man
 


Sounds like you need to do your research, and step off your own high horse.

patriotsquestion911.com...
www.boston911truth.org...
www.scholarsfor911truth.org...



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Why would they test for explosives? There really would be no reason to.


Well FEMA thought it was important to check for chemicals and explosives.

What they found sounds just like thermite.

911research.wtc7.net...

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.



[edit on 20-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
reply to gmac1000post by gmac1000
 


Hey cool glad one was new. Which one ? And any thoughts on the other sites??Have U searched them to in the past ?? Just wondering




The NDE one is a great site and i can across that years ago ,amazing read and info...

The Illuminatti matrix was a new site and amd enjoying that perspective it ties in with allot of the findings i have come across...

The daily motion video is another older one there are good vids ...just really tired of that song..

Thanks again plasma..



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

To put that into perspective the tested sample was recovered from the rubble of WTC7 a considerable period of time after the collapse of the building so the high temperature corrosion observed on that sample is by no means proof of processes occuring prior to (or during) collapse.

The residues detected were very 'ordinary' and not specific to any type of incendiary or explosive compounds and all it seems to indicate is heat and fires existed in the rubble as the most likely cause. WTC7 had a huge amount of volatile material inside it compared to a 'typical' office building to support those fires.

So we have evidence of steel heated to a high temperature which isn't much at all. It certainly doesn't support the claims of 'lakes of molten steel' and, if they had existed, the cleanup would have faced some unique difficulties removing such a solidified mass but there was no mention of it.

I feel there are elements of coverup (conspiracy if you like) but nothing on the unmanageable scale of faking plane crashes and demolishing buildings.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights
reply to post by Jake the Dog Man
 


Sounds like you need to do your research, and step off your own high horse.

patriotsquestion911.com...
www.boston911truth.org...
www.scholarsfor911truth.org...


Rehashed lists of questions that have been answered time & time again. Not to mention that these websites have been formed just to create a feeling of community for people with lack of understanding. They have resolved themselves to be as stubborn as some of the posters on this very thread have annouced they are.

If people are not willing to bend and sometimes concede, why bother reading others opinions? I admit to not having found much evidence (circum & or written) to make me doubt a variation of the official story. That does not mean that I will not continue to look, maybe finally settling on one just to bolster a seeded desire to not trust someone (or everyone)? No.

[edit on 20-3-2008 by Jake the Dog Man]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join