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: 44
10
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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]


The video shows the plane beginning to shred but the video also shows the pieces causing structural damage. Can you disprove the Purdue video that shows parts of the plane destroying/dislodging support columns? And it shows quite a few columns being damaged.




posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
The video shows the plane beginning to shred but the video also shows the pieces causing structural damage.


But the plane is being shredded, in fact the wings barely make it into the building.

Most reports also state the buildings witstood the planes impacts.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Comsence2075

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?


What national security reasons?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:33 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.



And once again, I'm forced to state that a lack of evidence is not evidence. At most, it only leaves unanswered questions that may lead in either direction depending on supportive evidence.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
The video shows the plane beginning to shred but the video also shows the pieces causing structural damage.


But the plane is being shredded, in fact the wings barely make it into the building.

Most reports also state the buildings witstood the planes impacts.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



I've watched the video and I know what it shows. It shows the plane damaging quite a few support columns.

You keep taking the reports out of context. The reports state that although the planes hit the buildings, and they didn't immediately collapse, the plane impacts started a chain of events that lead to the eventual collapse.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

And once again, I'm forced to state that a lack of evidence is not evidence.

Funny, they use it court.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Comsence2075

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?


What national security reasons?


There are still open investigations.
Some of the info may have been obtained through covert means.
Some of the info may have been obtained illegally.
Some of the info may have been obtained via secret survallience and explaining how they obtained the information would cause a breakdown of their spy networks or make available secret technology.
ETC.
ETC.
ETC.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123

And once again, I'm forced to state that a lack of evidence is not evidence.


Funny, they use it court.



No they don't use the lack of evidence to prosecute anyone. It doesn't happen. Give it up.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Comsence2075

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?


What national security reasons?


What national security reasons? Um, it is the pentagon, there are many reasons why we would withhold some specific reasons for things. Just like the government has been doing ever since there was a military. When information is not cause a potential for security issues, they release information. Years later....Why would they let the public see security cameras of the Pentagon? Do you know how many threats the Pentagon gets a year? A week?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Comsence2075
What national security reasons? Um, it is the pentagon, there are many reasons why we would withhold some specific reasons for things.


So its the Pentagon. Its also was a crime scene. Why are the refusing to release information even with a FOIA request? (that only has a few reasons why infomration can be witheld)



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Comsence2075
What national security reasons? Um, it is the pentagon, there are many reasons why we would withhold some specific reasons for things.


So its the Pentagon. Its also was a crime scene. Why are the refusing to release information even with a FOIA request? (that only has a few reasons why infomration can be witheld)


When you asked them, what did they tell you?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I totally disagree with the "NATIONAL SECURITY" excuse for lack of video detail at the Pentagon or a fuller explanation on other things.

The reason??

This Gov has lost the trust of the people by going into an illegal war that had nothing to do with the supposed man behind 9/11, with a lie of WMD.

How, can anyone trust the "NATIONAL SECURITY" excuse when in reality the current war would be in NO WAY IN THE INTERESTS OF NATIONAL SECURITY!?

They aren't acting in the interests of "NATIONAL SECURITY" with how they wage war, so there is no good reason to trust them at all.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by talisman]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
I totally disagree with the "NATIONAL SECURITY" excuse for lack of video detail at the Pentagon or a fuller explanation on other things.

The reason??

This Gov has lost the trust of the people by going into an illegal war that had nothing to do with the supposed man behind 9/11, with a lie of WMD.

How, can anyone trust the "NATIONAL SECURITY" excuse when in reality the current war would be in NO WAY IN THE INTERESTS OF NATIONAL SECURITY!?

They aren't acting in the interests of "NATIONAL SECURITY" with how they wage war, so there is no good reason to trust them at all.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by talisman]



I disagree that the current war has nothing to do with national security. Have they mismanaged the war, and acted with negligence? Sure.

However, Iraq is a central place in the middle-east. They may not have had WMD's, however Al Qaeda was known to be there, as they STILL ARE. Hussein was a brutal dictator that killed thousands of people. EVEN if they made up a reason for war to have a central command post to attack Al Qaeda by taking down an evil regime, fine. It sucks that troops are still being killed without a doubt. People claim they are not any safer, I disagree. It is easy to people say they are not any safer, we have not been attacked since 2001, yet authorities have stopped many plots around the world. And those are the ones the public knows about...I promise there are some the government did not release.

It is very easy to say we are not safer but you do not know what may have happened if Hussein aided terrorist groups with all his money. After these reasons, I still feel we the government has not done a good job and should have stayed the course for Bin-Laden. But there intentions for Iraq were not because of a NWO or anything else but fighting terrorists...IMO.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
When you asked them, what did they tell you?


Well they came up with a excuse but it was very flimsy.

Plus i work for the governmant and have access to some good sources.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Comsence2075
They may not have had WMD's, however Al Qaeda was known to be there, as they STILL ARE. .


But they diod have WMDs they had used them. Plus we found evindece and were told by defectors that most of the WMDs were moved.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
When you asked them, what did they tell you?


Well they came up with a excuse but it was very flimsy.

Plus i work for the governmant and have access to some good sources.


What was the excuse?
What are your sources and what did they say?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Comsence2075
They may not have had WMD's, however Al Qaeda was known to be there, as they STILL ARE. .


But they diod have WMDs they had used them. Plus we found evindece and were told by defectors that most of the WMDs were moved.


From what I understand, the majority of our intelligence came from one person codenamed Curveball. And Curveball was shown to be a lier in the past.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Comsence2075
They may not have had WMD's, however Al Qaeda was known to be there, as they STILL ARE. .


But they diod have WMDs they had used them. Plus we found evindece and were told by defectors that most of the WMDs were moved.


I know but I am trying to argue even if they had not, we still had a reason. They had intentions if they were not fully developed yet without a doubt.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
What was the excuse?


It was a law enforcement excuse, but seeing that they the FBI only spent 5 days at the crime scene it does not seem like they need to hold basic infomration.

I have also e-mailed companies that were at ground zero. One company wrote back and stated thry could not answer my questions due to 9/11 lawsuits.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
What was the excuse?


It was a law enforcement excuse,

What was the specific reason?


but seeing that they the FBI only spent 5 days at the crime scene it does not seem like they need to hold basic infomration.

As part of an ongoing investigation, even seemingly basic information may be withheld indefinitely. It's fairly common.



I have also e-mailed companies that were at ground zero. One company wrote back and stated thry could not answer my questions due to 9/11 lawsuits.

This is reasonable

Also,
What are your sources and what did they say?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join