Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by Disclosed
Which it did. The buildings did withstand the initial impacts, a fact also verified in the NIST reports. The plane impacts themselves did not bring down the buildings.

The building was filled with materials that caught fire. Paper, cubicles, carpeting, etc etc. That material was ignited during the initial fuel explosion/fire.....and subsequently spread.


I don't buy that bull and neither should you. "Paper, cubicles, carpeting, etc. etc." don't burn hot enough to weaken structural steel to the point of collapse.

How do you know?


The buildings were pulverised. If the pancake theory were true some floors should have remained intact.

Again, how do you KNOW this is true?




posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spaxz
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 


Very well said Nighthawk, what you said got me thinking. Are you a lawyer of some sort Op?

No.


You seem to jump back and forth on issues, not seeming to take a side. I do believe you have a side here cause everyone basically has one, on 9/11.

I actually don't have a side. I am interested ONLY in finding the truth. Nothing more, nothing less. In my search for the truth, I do try and employ the innocent until proven guilty idea as it's a good way to handle any type of investigation, even if it is an amateur doing so.


So like Nighthawk said, your either trying to piss people off and get a heated debate going, for points or whatever.

What can I get with point? How do points help me on ATS. Seriously, I honestly don't know.
And I really am not trying to p!ss off anyone.


Or your one of those dis-info agents I hear people talk about on this site.

Yes, we like to be called DA's for short. I work for the government by coming on ATS and annoying people by asking legitimate questions. Oops as a DA, I should've known better telling you I'm a DA. Wait, I didn't just say that either.
Ok forget everything you just read about me telling you I'm a DA. DAMN!! I did it again!! Ok forget that too ok?


I ask you Op to show me on this thread, Why building 7 collapsed? Hard evidence please like the ones you request of us.

The only evidence I can show you is the NIST final report.


Thank you for your effort in the discussion of 9/11 but you are coming off a little rude when thousands of people died.

I know thousands of people died and those who were involved should be punished-WHOMEVER they are.


All "we" truthers want is the holes filled in, and if you say there are no holes or ask me to show proof of these holes, I ask other ATS members to discontinue posting replies to this thread as it will only create anger and distane for each other in our replies. To each our own.

All I want is to find out who was involved.

I appreciate your participation.
Please keep in mind that the only reason I started this thread was a favor for another member.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed

Originally posted by Spaxz
All "we" truthers want is the holes filled in, and if you say there are no holes or ask me to show proof of these holes, I ask other ATS members to discontinue posting replies to this thread as it will only create anger and distane for each other in our replies. To each our own.


Guess this thread will die out soon then. You want answers, but only if they fit your guidelines. We cant say there arent holes....we cant ask you to post any evidence...can we at least pee when we need to?

Where there is a chance to debate, people will always take sides. But when you limit one side to what it can/cannot say....it is no longer a debate.

Ah well, i'm sure this will still be debated on in 10 years, 20, who knows. Just like the Kennedy assassination....


Very well said. Thanks for your posts.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Too bad you have no real evidence to support the official story.


Why should I support the official information any more than it is now? It answers all of my questions, and has disproven a LOT of CT's claims already. There are things that may be questionable now, but should be clarified once the official report is released.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by gmac1000
The first one that comes to mind is the extrealy poor cover up of building 7 that came down 8 hours later by a "controlled demolition" according to the lease holder Harvey Silverstein and he and the fire cheif decided to "pull it" yet a control demolsion takes days to prepare and they had to do it over rubble mixed with bodies...I don't think so

...I like i say this is the first to come to mind many more are there...


The pull it comment was in regard to pulling people out, not dropping the building.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
The pull it comment was in regard to pulling people out, not dropping the building.


corroborated by firefighter Richard Banaciski :

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski


and Fire Chief Daniel Nigro:

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department


[edit on 17-3-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by AceWombat04
By my standards (the standards of skepticism,) abscence of evidence isn't evidence of anything, because you can't prove a negative (such as the official story not being true);


Lack of evidence is used as evidence in court all the time.


That wasn't what the topic starter asked, though. They asked what it would take to prove to me that there was a greater conspiracy. Again, I believe there was one. I just don't know for a fact that there was.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by jfj123
 


Read the PNAC-report, that pretty much sums up the events and the reasoning behind 911 from the government's perspective, before the events actually happened. Coincidence?

So you actually believe that the government wasn't behind 911, and that they are so incompetent that they couldn't stop it, and now they make it look like they did it, in order to not look so incompetent? At least that's what I got from reading your posts.

My perspective is as follows:
At this point in time, I don't believe the government was involved in orchestrating 9/11. I believe that because those who we trusted to protect us , were asleep at the switch, 9/11 happened. At that point the BUTT covering began. You can't really blame one person without blaming everyone from individual government agents right up to the president. Since nobody is going to volunteer to be the one responsible for thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in damage, nobody really got blamed.


Like others before me said, I think you don't want to know, either it's to shocking for you, or you have alterior motives. The way you act and respond doesn't make me feel you are out to find truth.

Of course I want to know or I wouldn't post in 9/11 threads, I would simply avoid them altogether.

I'm just looking for some facts. People keep posting things like:
Physics proves that buildings can't fall like that. Ok, you may be right, can you show me the math that shows you're right? I've never seen any math.

then there's the:
No planes ever hit the WTC buildings.
Really? well how do you explain the planes that were seen?
They were holograms.
Really? Can you show me how holograms can do this?
No.
Well I can show you how it's not possible for holograms to do this.
Their response is as follows:
Since planes didn't hit the towers, it must have been holograms so you are wrong.
WHAT???

I keep seeing postings like this that make factual claims so I innocently ask for the actual facts and I'm always disappointed.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Spaxz
 


Seriously, I'm not a disinfo agent. I work in construction. Believe me, if I had a cushy government job, I wouldn't have been outside today doing siding repairs in 30 degree weather.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bovarcher
 


Thank you very much about the heads up regarding Endgame.

I'm always very skeptical when someone comes on here and says go look at this or go watch that and doesn't at least post a synopsis of the info in their words with corroborative sources.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spaxz
Oh and big surpise the Op didn't anwser my question on the first page. I now believe he is a dis-info agent till he proves otherwise. This is his only thread and hasn't come back makes you wonder.

1. Sorry I missed your question. What was it? I'd be more then happy to answer it if I can.

2. So now you're asking me to prove I'm not a disinfo agent? Thats asking me to prove a double negative-that's impossible.

Can I show you my "I'm not a disinfo agent" card?



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I count that among the evidence to which I was referring, actually. It's just that that's not conclusive proof by my standards. (It is evidence, though.)


The biggest evidence against the official story is the lack of evidence that supports it.



Sorry but that's not evidence. At best it's left neutral with neither innocence or guilt.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
And since you know me, you can make that assumption ?


Based on your statements here, and the evidence people have repeatedly tried to show you that you have simply dismissed out of hand, yes. Absolutely.


But even a prosecutor cannot charge someone without solid evidence.


No, but he CAN investigate, and continue to do so, as long as resources allow.


They were designed to take an impact from a 727 not traveling at high speed.


No, 707.

WTC Design Parameters


What does the timing matter?


It matters immensely. Steel doesn't just soften and weaken instantly under the kind of heat generated by the fires. It would take longer, hence my assertion that if it happened at the END of the day I could possibly consider it.


The WTC's were massive structures that didn't collapse instantly from the plane impact.


Not instantly, but certainly a lot faster than one should expect.


The number of individuals required to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude is simply too great to keep quite and not make a single mistake that would leave physical evidence.


Hello? Same people who pulled off the Gulf of Tonkin false-flag? Same people who to this day have kept the activities of Area 51 and half a dozen other secret bases under wraps? Same people who have kept what they know about UFOs quiet for more than 60 years? Same people who pulled off the Manhattan Project (much of which is still secret to this day)? It's very, very easy for these people to keep secrets. They have a lot of practice. How do mob bosses hold hundreds, sometimes thousands of people under their thumbs and not get caught? Stop thinking like a damn defense lawyer and think like a cop. Physical evidence exists, or did at one time. All they have to do to make it go away is dump it in the deep ocean or bury it somewhere the public can't (or wouldn't want to) go, like Yucca Mountain. As for the people, motivations of money, blackmail, threats against their families, etc. go a long way to keeping them quiet.

(edit) You know what, never mind. I'm done with you. You obviously get your jollies playing the harpy. According to your standards of proof no criminal would ever successfully be prosecuted. You don't want proof, you want angry truthers to attack you. You're just like a Scientologist. People show you evidence again and again, more is available to find, and you keep coming back and either saying it's not evidence or it's not proof. Let me tell you something: Only one aspect of the official story needs to be proven false. Only one. That's all it takes for a rational mind to question how much of the rest of the story is bull. But you're not rational. You're only here to annoy and harass. This is a game to you. You keep saying you think there's more to the story, but you only say it to evade criticism. It's all garbage and I for one won't put up with it anymore.

[edit on 3/17/2008 by The Nighthawk]

[edit on 3/17/2008 by The Nighthawk]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Sorry but that's not evidence. At best it's left neutral with neither innocence or guilt.


WRONG, lack of evidence is used as evidence in court all the time.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
The pull it comment was in regard to pulling people out, not dropping the building.



Originally posted by Disclosed
corroborated by firefighter Richard Banaciski :


Why would PULL IT mean the firemen when the firmen were out of the building before the call was made?

Chief Nigro has stated he evacuated the firemen without talking to Silverstein.

So the only reason for the call was to tell Silverstein they could not save the buidling. So PULL IT meant the building not the firmen.



[edit on 17-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by jfj123
And since you know me, you can make that assumption ?


Based on your statements here, and the evidence people have repeatedly tried to show you that you have simply dismissed out of hand, yes. Absolutely.

But nobody has posted "evidence", only claims that evidence exists somewhere.


What does the timing matter?

It matters immensely. Steel doesn't just soften and weaken instantly under the kind of heat generated by the fires. It would take longer,

How much longer? How much time would it take to weaken the steal to the point of complete structural failure based on already existing impact damage?


The WTC's were massive structures that didn't collapse instantly from the plane impact.


Not instantly, but certainly a lot faster than one should expect.
What scientific reasons do you have for this?



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Sorry but that's not evidence. At best it's left neutral with neither innocence or guilt.


WRONG, lack of evidence is used as evidence in court all the time.



Please cite example. I've never seen the lack of evidence used as evidence.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Please cite example. I've never seen the lack of evidence used as evidence.


Very simple, if i took you to court and showed evidence to dispute the official story and challenged you to post evidence to suport the official story.

If you do not have the evidence to support the official story you would lose the case.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Please cite example. I've never seen the lack of evidence used as evidence.


Very simple, if i took you to court and showed evidence to dispute the official story and challenged you to post evidence to suport the official story.

If you do not have the evidence to support the official story you would lose the case.



That means you would be presenting evidence, not a lack of it.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
That means you would be presenting evidence, not a lack of it.


Yes i would be presenting evidence but if you had no evidnece to support the official story then that would be evidence also. Lack of evdience that you could not support your side of the case.








[edit on 17-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join