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: 43
10
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



You are talking about the people that believe the official story that live in a fantasy world and only accept what they want.


Actually I was talking about you. But sticks and stones and all of that.

Please note your old tactics of peeving me off won't work atm.




Why do you keep avoiding the fact that most reports state the buidlings withstood the planes impacts?


Cause I am not? Unless your claiming that withstood means that it left no damage. Then I would be forced to laugh. Alot.




posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And minus massive structural damage from being hit by a plane as well.


There was no "massive structural damage" sustained by the planes, unless taking out a minority of the support on only a few floors equates to "massive" (and of course it would to you: you are simply biased). FEMA and NIST show you what the planes could have realistically done: not nearly enough.


They actually give numbers as a matter of fact, and if you trust me enough and are too lazy to look for yourself (not as though you could debunk me on this anyway) the combined perimeter and core column losses still equate to less than 15% of the columns severed whereas 50% AT LEAST would have to be severed, assuming the building was barely legal and had a generalized factor of safety of 2 on those floors. That means the fire would have had to done over at least 2x as much damage, more like between 2x and 3x at the bare minimum just to get something moving.



Sorry but all I have ever seen you guys do is string together similarities while completely ignoring differences


You see it this way. The way I see it, you only call foul on ridiculous differences like what time of day a photo was taken, as if that has anything to do with the intensity of the fire.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

*snickers*
Methinks I touched a nerve. Ok, here goes.


There was no "massive structural damage" sustained by the planes, unless taking out a minority of the support on only a few floors equates to "massive." FEMA and NIST show you what the planes could have realistically done: not nearly enough.


Yea, the external damage on quite a few of the sides is no possible indicator.
And the supports on the floors above those floors couldn't have possibly been affected by the fact that the ones below had been compromised. Sure if you take some sorta strange non-linear thinking approach. Too bad the events on 9/11 were linear in nature.
Sure. Rrrrriiiiiiigggggghhhhhhhhtttttttt LoL!
They were continuous through out the buildings.
You know a straight line up of metal for each of the core supports.

By all means believe what you want just don't expect me to follow along when I find your arguments wanting.




You see it this way. The way I see it, you only call foul on ridiculous differences like what time of day a photo was taken, as if that has anything to do with the intensity of the fire.


Ummmm fires being more luminous at night? As opposed to mid-day.
Visual differences is all we are talking about here.
Unless you have a complete casefile about that particular fire that included massive plane induced structural damage at the upper levels.

Want to debate whether or not we exist?


[edit on 9-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
*snickers*
Methinks I touched a nerve.


You're wrong? Glad you're having fun, though.


Yea, the external damage on quite a few of the sides is no possible indicator.


You can yap but it doesn't mean anything. I already posted you the numbers, if you're ever adventurous enough to go out and corroborate them.

I know the FEMA chapters dealing with the perimeter columns: 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2.

I guess you just like looking at pictures and using your imagination. And just spouting off meaningless rants, apparently.



Ummmm fires being more luminous at night?


Like I said, nothing to do with the intensity of the fires.

Btw, they put off the exact same amount of photons during the day. It's just that the Sun is also out. Also, sarcasm is different than reasoning. Sarcasm has more to do with your ego, apparently you feel threatened.


[edit on 9-4-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 




Btw, they put off the exact same amount of photons during the day. It's just that the Sun is also out. Also, sarcasm is different than reasoning. Sarcasm has more to do with your ego, apparently you feel threatened.


Hardly. LoL! But tell yourself that all you want friend.


Ok I tell you what start a fire during the day and take a picture.
Then start a fire during the night and take a picture.
If you don't see a difference then your lost.
*shrugs*



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Ok I tell you what start a fire during the day and take a picture.
Then start a fire during the night and take a picture.
If you don't see a difference then your lost.
*shrugs*



Ok, now that you've taken your 10th post to overkill this completely irrelevant observation, can you finally pay attention and tell me why what the fire looks like to you is more important to a relevant comparison than

a) how long the fires burned,

b) the relative sizes of the structural members of the buildings involved, or

c) the fact that entire floors (and lower floors) of this building were consumed by fire, whereas this was not the case at the WTC?


Why are you so obsessed with the amount of light coming from the fires? Are you really into the energy beam stuff? Do you think photons make a difference or something?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Once again.
We were talking about how Ultima says that the pictures I shown wasn't of a raging fire and shows me pictures of a fire taken at twilight or night.

You barged in and ranted at me.

Guess I need to just keep you on the ignore list.
Which I will.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Once again.
We were talking about how Ultima says that the pictures I shown wasn't of a raging fire and shows me pictures of a fire taken at twilight or night.


I know! And I think it's a completely stupid thing to be talking about!

I posted something relevant, now you shut up and don't want to talk anymore!


You barged in and ranted at me.

Guess I need to just keep you on the ignore list.
Which I will.


You'll be more comfortable with me there.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
And suffice it to say your claim to calling those buildings situations the same is a bit misguided. No structural damage on that building. But you will continue to rant at me which is why I placed you on ignore.
Soo.
By all means continue.


Too bad I don't even know what your last post said and have no wish to.
Can pretty much guess its content.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And suffice it to say your claim to calling those buildings situations the same is a bit misguided.


They don't have to be the same. Then there would be no need for comparison in the first place.


No structural damage on that building.


Fire causes structural damage. Entire floors were gutted. That didn't happen at either WTC tower.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Cause I am not? Unless your claiming that withstood means that it left no damage.


No it means the buildings withstood the planes impacts. Oh, and no plane hit building 7.

Also i have shown buidlings that had as bad or worse structural damage and did not collapse.

NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED FROM FIRE, NO MATTER HOW SEVERE.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants

- Statements from people who were actually involved in the conspiracy.




This is one of the points I have asked about in another thread-no answers for everybody who believes that the government was involved.

From all the theories themselves, look at how many people would have to have been involved! All the media, government, politicians, tons of government agencies, private contractors, world leaders, fire/police, on and on.

There is absolutely no way if that was what happened, that nobody has come out years later to say they were involved and so were x y and z. People talk...no matter what, people talk!



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


You have?
Then how come I have heard you talk about it often yet have yet to see said "evidence" materialize to any appreciative length?

Sort of like when you claimed the perdue video showed the plane breaking up at impact......



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Sort of like when you claimed the perdue video showed the plane breaking up at impact......


Becasue it does show the plane being shredded as soon as it hits the building.



[edit on 11-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by saturnsrings
The only evidence I need is the video clip from the pentagon, which does not show a large passenger jet aircraft, plowing into the pentagon.

Could you please post the video? The only video I've seen is the CCTV video which showed nothing traveling through the field of vision as it was between frames.


Well, that and there was no wreckage from a 757/767 at the pentagon,

I have seen photos of crash debris at the pentagon. What would you suggest about those photos?
example:
files.abovetopsecret.com...


oh that perfect hole in the c ring too. I doubt a vaporized plane could pull that off, but I'd guess a cruise missile could.

What is this belief based on? What have you seen that you can use as a comparison?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I believe you've made some interesting points that have brought these questions to my attention. Thanks for your help.


I know I am replying to a very early comment in this discussion but when I looked at the picture posted with this comment, I noticed the American flags in the picture are both backwards. I thought the flag was only flown this way in times of "severe distress". Could have this have been a clue when the picture was taken that something was wrong with picture being taken? Has anyone else noticed this? Or am I grasping at straws here?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   
I didn't read much of this thread, but to answer your original question.


Originally posted by jfj123
What evidence would make you believe that the United States government was directly involved in planning and carrying out 9/11? Although I have read and posted in many 9/11 threads, I have never seen actual evidence showing the government was involved. I have read about suspicion and lack of evidence to suggest implied guilt but that in and of itself is not evidence.

Please feel free to:
1. Describe what level of evidence is necessary for you to believe in a conspiracy.
2. Post any real evidence you have so others who do not have access to it, can re-examine their answer to the above question.

Again, feel free to post real evidence so we can give a better informed answer to the question but when posting, please show the source of the evidence so we can give it the weight it deserves as opposed to hearsay.

Also, please DON'T just post links and tell people to go look. Tell us what we are going to find at those links and expound on why you want us to got there and look.

I know these threads can get pretty heated so please treat others the way you want to be treated.


[edit on 16-3-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 16-3-2008 by jfj123]


Okay, first..... it would take a giant purple dinosaur to poop out smaller purple dinosaurs in space broadcast live from nasa on the evening news.

What evidence would I need to suppose otherwise?

Evidence that I am actually, in reality, a small woodland creature who accidentally drank too much immortality potion, and then later got trapped in a super advanced military/blackops holographic virtual reality simulator that could duplicate anything, and eventually, after literally being forced to evolve by the means of extreme boredom for extreme periods of time, I've created everything that is and have come to this point in time where I've experienced every possible angle there cold be in the universe, except this one.

So, to summarize, I would have see evidence that I am a doormouse wearing a virtual reality helmet forever, literally. If it was a metaphor, it wouldn't work too well.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   
I'd like to thank all those who've presented pictures and data I hadn't seen before. It has been encouragement to look deeper into what's available and it all leads me further away from the 'macro' theories of conspiracy like faked plane crashes, planted parts, buildings destroyed via means other than plane crashes and fires.

I still leave open the smaller scale (manageable) conspiracies like who had control of the planes and how they got control of them. Things like the all-too-convenient location of incriminating evidence, much of it in arabic, that pointed the finger at the 'official' suspects.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'd like to thank all those who've presented pictures and data I hadn't seen before. It has been encouragement to look deeper into what's available and it all leads me further away from the 'macro' theories of conspiracy like faked plane crashes, planted parts, buildings destroyed via means other than plane crashes and fires.


But still no pictures and data to actually support the official stroy.

No photos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

No official reports that match the parts found to Flight 77.

There is more evidence that questions the official story then supports it.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
It looks like controlled demolition, it sounds like controlled demolition, it smells like controlled demolition, it feels like controlled demolition-conclusion: It was an inside job!

9/11 was the beginning of a global 24/7, brainwashing, orwellian strategy, which is self-proofing by just open up your eyes.

It's all about absolute global power, to get unlimited access to all ressources, especially oil.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'd like to thank all those who've presented pictures and data I hadn't seen before. It has been encouragement to look deeper into what's available and it all leads me further away from the 'macro' theories of conspiracy like faked plane crashes, planted parts, buildings destroyed via means other than plane crashes and fires.


But still no pictures and data to actually support the official stroy.

No photos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

No official reports that match the parts found to Flight 77.

There is more evidence that questions the official story then supports it.



Ultima, I agree there are more questions than answers, absolutely. However, have you ever considered that a lot of information is being withheld for national security reasons? The people questioning the Pentagon should at least "consider" that due to being the Pentagon, much was withheld. I am not arguing that there was a lot withheld. I have not seen a video of a plane hitting the Pentagon...I just think there are reasonable explanations. I also think we shot down the plain heading to the white house. Where does that plane fit into the conspiracies? They purposely used another plain to crash so people would question the governments involvement? And I have to say if the government is involved with the NWO and did this all on purpose for a sick reason, they are not doing a very good job. I think if they wanted to do something like that, they would do a much better job with all the technology they have access to.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join