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: 50
10
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 03:08 AM
link   
No, No.

Here's my PROOF: I've never seen a sane person act so obtuse. Never. Show me sane people acting that obtuse.

Pay no attention to the fact that I've never studied psychology and only have one course to my credit in sociology many years ago -- I have seen alot of movies and tv shows that feature insane people, and while a psychologist might pronounce them sane, I KNOW that they don't look sane to me. I've never seen it. Never before in human history has a sane person acted such.

So now it's up to them to prove their individual sanity to me. Or admit they are part of the conspiracy to obscure the greater conspiracy of 911. I won't accept testimony from a psychologist, because if they visited the psychologist I'm sure he didn't perform testing pro-bono. And if they paid the psychologist, the psychologist will only answer what THEY want them to say. But I'm completely open minded about it, and if you're not then you're clearly sheeple.






[edit on 19-4-2008 by _Del_]




posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   
"Sheeple" is from a freaking car ad. Using it to sound nonconformist is auto-fail.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Oh, damn. I'll have to go read some more conspiracy threads and pick up other perjoritives that make me sound superior



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Makoto
 


Still it can be an apt term for those that follow the "herd".
In the end so what about where it comes from?



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Here we go again. Hop scotching back to a debate you already lost that led to this one in the first place.


Funny how there has been no real evidence (only opinions) to debate what i post, no real evidence to support the official story.

Lets look at a couple facts where you have lost the debate.

1. The Purdue video supports what i posted that no nose, wings, or tail made it into the building.

2. No steel buidling has ever collapsed from fire.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Just admit you're part of the conspiracy already. You're doing this to look silly so we people won't look at the REAL conspiracy aren't you? We're all onto you now.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Just admit you're part of the conspiracy already. You're doing this to look silly so we people won't look at the REAL conspiracy aren't you? We're all onto you now.


So you admit the official story is a conspiracy?



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Clearly, because the only reason for someone to act so unconventionally is to disuade people from listening to anything. You're making the whole conspiracy look delusional, so the question is, "Who do you REALLY work for?"



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Clearly, because the only reason for someone to act so unconventionally is to disuade people from listening to anything.


How is doing research to find the truth acting unconventionally?

As stated the only conspiracy is the one the official story is based on.

Oh, by the way i have a combined military and government service of over 25 years.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 06:24 AM
link   
So the truth is out -- you do work for the government. Clearly your data is suspect, because why would someone who works for the government tell us the truth. Atleast you were honest, I can appreciate that much.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



1. The Purdue video supports what i posted that no nose, wings, or tail made it into the building.


You are soo full of it as if we have already shown you droves of pictures showing just the opposite. If you can't remember that well go back and look.
Sheesh.



How is doing research to find the truth acting unconventionally?


Considering your approach to the Perdue video I somehow HIGHLY doubt what you do is research Ultima. More like relentlessly seeking to prop up your pet theory, probly for the purposes of a future book deal.


[edit on 19-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
You are soo full of it as if we have already shown you droves of pictures showing just the opposite.


Please show me a frame of the Purde video that shows the nose, wings, and tail making it inside the building. Or be mature enough to admit you are wrong.



[edit on 19-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please show me a frame of the Purde video that shows the nose, wings, and tail making it inside the building. Or be mature enough to admit you are wrong.


You have been shown more than 1 frame displaying what you ask for so the problem is obviously not the lack of it but more an inability to see it, or anything else that contradicts your beliefs.

BTW it's 2008 and there's at least 3 steel framed buildings that have collapsed with fires in them now, 2 were hit by aircraft first.

Still NO evidence of a conspiracy on the scale of deliberate demolition. Plenty of conjecture but no proof is where this could remain till it gets forgotten or rehashed on a Discovery Channel special edition in 2100.

[edit on 19/4/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please show me a frame of the Purde video that shows the nose, wings, and tail making it inside the building. Or be mature enough to admit you are wrong.


You been shown more than 1 frame displaying what you ask for so the problem is obviously not the lack of it but more an inability to see it, or anything else that contradicts your beliefs.

BTW it's 2008 and there's at least 3 steel framed buildings that have collapsed with fires in them now, 2 were hit by aircraft first.

Still NO evidence of a conspiracy on the scale of deliberate demolition. Plenty of conjecture but no proof is where this could remain till it gets forgotten or rehashed on a Discovery Channel special edition in 2100.


1) Mutliple claims of explosions in the basement of the WTC(s), before they were hit.
2) Mutliple claims of explosions in the WTC after they've been hit, but before collapse.
3) Multiple claims of WTC 7 being purposefully demolished.

I guess eyewitness accounts isn't "proof" enough for you?



The less innocent part is that all the major "news' outlets are now owned by corporations that are part of the "military industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned us about. And so they lie egregiously and intend to keep doing so. They will NOT print or broadcast one damned thing that they don't want you to know. So it is nonsense to believe or say.....if your "conspiracy theory" were true the media would tell us about it.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Double Eights
 


Are those first 2 points evidence of a conspiracy other than the 'official' attack on western politics and economy?
Note that they are claims and I agree that the basement explosion was the best of them but still inadequate to cause the building to fail and the source & cause of that explosion is still very unclear.
Point 3 - well still just claims and gut feelings but no real evidence.

As for eyewitness accounts, Ultima may like to tell you how reliable they are so there's still no proof. I mean hard, unchallengeable, send em to jail proof.

One of these years the FBI & NTSB will release comprehensive no-holds-barred reports and there will no longer be any question of what happened.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Double Eights
 


Considering that eyewitness accounts aren't worth crap as a PSYCHOLOGIST will you tell you.
Reading for you enlightenment.

The problem with eyewitnesses @ BBC



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
You have been shown more than 1 frame displaying what you ask for so the problem is obviously not the lack of it but more an inability to see it, or anything else that contradicts your beliefs.


WRONG, There is no frames of the Purdue video that show the nose, wings, and tail making it through the outter walls. Why do you have to lie?

EXCEPT for the WTC buildings, NO steel building has ever collasped due to fire. ALMOST all reports state the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

NO plane hit building 7.





[edit on 19-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



WRONG, There is no frames of the Purdue video that show the nose, wings, and tail making it through the outter walls. Why do you have to lie?


He never claimed it did. Saying it penetrated does not say it went all the way through intact.

Unless you want to say during intercourse when you achieve penetration that means your things goes out the other side of a woman.......


Your just king of the strawman aren't you?

Honestly man do you have some sort of mental problem that makes you twist others statements and then treat the twisted argument as what they said?


[edit on 20-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
WRONG, There is no frames of the Purdue video that show the nose, wings, and tail making it through the outter walls. Why do you have to lie?


That's quite an accusation to be making but while we're on the topic of honesty, here's a couple of frames for honest comment. It looks like the nose, wings and tail have made it into the building.




A pic of the actual hole:


A schematic representation of the observable damage:


A schematic of damage calculated by the NIST model:


In my honest opinion there's a high degree of correlation here indicating the use of realistic parameters by all parties contributing to the study.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum It looks like the nose, wings and tail have made it into the building.


Funny those frames are of the plane OUTSIDE the building.

Where are the frames of the nose, wings and tail INSIDE the building that i asked for?

Don't you know the difference between the outside and inside of a building?



[edit on 20-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join