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: 51
10
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Ultima you are beating your credibility to crap. How in the heck are you supposed to get pictures of the inside of a building with that level of damage RIGHT after it happend? Or are there invicible cameras and camera men out there?

Oh and incidently. I remember you saying this, pilgrum just proved to you otherwise.



The plane is getting shredded as soon as it hits the outter beams, the wings barley make it into the building.If you look at the actual photos of the holes in the towers you will see this is true.


Oh and it is HERE
just in case you forgot the post.




posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
That's the point: the lack of evidence is his "evidence" Instead of trying to prove his fascinating and unlikely theory, he leaves it to you to dis-prove. Then dances in glee because he's "winning." Further his rare ability to mangle a point leads me to believe he's in it to troll response. He plays you one section of his record on his record player. When you finally make sense of it and eliminate one source of noise, he just picks up the arm and moves it to a different random section of his record.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


I am inclined to believe that he has a book coming out soon or has one already out there. Considering that in my dealings with him I asked him just that and he tends to avoid uncomfortable questions, so I didn't get an answer.
Not an out and out liar, but is trying to play the half truth game.

Like this one which I pose again Ultima "So, are the Perdue guys in on it or fools?"



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
"So, are the Perdue guys in on it or fools?"

A model that clearly fails to include wings and engines is foolish.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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?


To me it shows the disputed components passing through the outer wall and entering what most reasonable people would consider to be the inside of the building.

From the same simulation - here's that animated gif I made of the core damage study again.



Virtually the entire plane makes it right through the outer wall to be shredded by the jungle of core columns. Yes it's severely distorted by then but it IS inside the outer wall. I'll allow that the wingtips and tip of the vertical section of tail were pulverised outside and the studies plus the observed event damage agree on that.

Why is honesty and impartiality such a difficult concept?



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Wasn't asking you but, you didn't answer my question.
Are they fools or were they in on it?
I mean damn, some people here act like that you can add bubbles on a multiple choice question test.

The engines are shown on it btw.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Sadly, I could write a much more compelling book if only I could lose those things called scruples.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Money has a strong allure for the weak willed my friend.
And some would cut their grandmother's throat for it.
Even their children's, as my father stands a testament to that, to me seeing as to how you don't know him.
heheheheh

[edit on 20-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Are they fools or were they in on it?
The engines are shown on it btw.

Where are the engines and wings shown inside the building?

It's rather foolish of them to forget those important pieces of the plane.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You really show you didn't watch it all the way through.
They talk about parts of the engines and their effects on the inside of the building...................................

Next?



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Where are the engines and wings shown inside the building?

It's rather foolish of them to forget those important pieces of the plane.


Isn't it entirely possible that the size, speed and density of those objects were accounted for in the calculatons but not in the animation? Would that be mind boggling? Or do you think they "forgot" them? Or did they "forget" to add them so they would come to a certain conclusion?
There are three options:
1) They effectively rendered the equations, but not the animation for simplicity (they also neglected to put windows on the model, and airline logos, and I didn't see any anti-collision lights either)
2) They are collectively incompetent and none of them thought to include these things.
3) They are complicit in the plot to spread disinformation about the processes in the buildings collapse.

Those are really the only choices available. Your deduction they are all "foolish" really seems the least likely to me. Atleast have the courage to pick option three for crying out loud.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
They talk about parts of the engines and their effects on the inside of the building...

It shows how cheap talk can be.

There's no point talking about engine parts inside the building, when they don't show an engine or wings inside the building.

Engine parts must have come from an engine, so why isn't the engine shown?

Fool-proof models should not be so contradictory.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Fool-proof models should not be so contradictory.


Oh, believe me. If you guys are showing anything, it is certainly that the models ARE NOT "fool-proof."



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Your argument is soo full of logical fallacy it is almost laughable friend.

Here is the frame showing parts impacting the outside and coming in as the narrator is saying "Notice the right engine..."


And here is a few seconds after as the part has come through the building:



And a few more seconds:



Do I need to chop the video up in screen shots and show them in sequence with the narration?

Seeing as to how your obviously not paying attention.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I viewed that side-on sequence of the plane entering the building very closely and what they've done is simply hide the right wing and engine to display the damage to the trusses supporting the floor above more clearly. The model's wing attachment is clearly shown and the damage being done by the engine + wing is also shown, responding as if being ripped by a phantom wing. I also noted that the tail entered very neatly after having its way cleared by the front of the plane.

They could have left the wing visible but the argument then would probably be that the trusses weren't damaged because we can't see it happening


There's just no pleasing everyone but hanging on doggedly to weak arguments makes for a very weak case doomed to failure.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights

Originally posted by jfj123
The government itself has stated that they F-ed up and that there were plenty of signs they should have seen. Massive incompetence rarely turns out well.


If it was all just one big "goof" by the Bush Administration, why are they all still in power? Why did many within the Administration get promotions after 9/11?

Read my two links, and tell me the Bush Administration didn't go out of their way to allow an attack. Tell me the Bush Administration didn't try to cover-up what happened that day.

If there is nothing to hide, why is it hidden?



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by philjwolf
 


you answered your own question... massive incompetence... think about it



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by philjwolf
 


More logical fallacy.
*sigh*

There IS signs of duplicity in the government. BUT that does not mean they carried out the 9/11 attacks themselves. That is what this argument is really about the fact that some doggedly against common sense and evidence seem to think that the government did this to itself.

And we have shown in this conversation just the depths they are willing to go to in order to pretend they are right.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The model's wing attachment is clearly shown and the damage being done by the engine + wing is also shown, responding as if being ripped by a phantom wing.
So the model has to rely on phantom wings to be accurate? Amazing.

By the way, were these phantom wings ever positively identified to be those belonging to the alleged plane, or do we skip over that as a matter convenience?



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Dood.
Weak argument REAL weak.
Just because they chose not to show the wing doesn't mean that a wings effects would not happen within the confines of the simulation.

And he said they make it so that we can't see it to BETTER SEE THE DAMAGE.
Sheesh.
Some people.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]




top topics



 
10
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join