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: 60
10
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The 'official' story is based on collected evidence, lots of it. There is the possibility of some ambiguity in the interpretation but the evidence stands regardless.


There are no official reports or hard evidence that supports the official story.

The official story would not hold up in court because reasonable doubt has been shown.




posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA...we've already shown that 'reasonable doubt' has been shown in 'your courtroom'....so far....I mean, when have you presented real evidence? You ask others, but all you have to post is stuff you salvaged of of the Internets......Really, ULITMA....what else can you provide, from YOUR OWN SOURCES?!?!?!?!?

Admit it....you just are using other's sources.....you have none of your own....Or, Do you???

If so, show them. If not, clam up!

WW



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ClashWho
Why exactly would it be a wheel from a different plane? What exactly are you suggesting?

And, perhaps you missed this, but what about all the DNA evidence collected from the site? The body parts?


1. There is no evidence to support that wheel found is form a 757.


Of course there is, since those kinds of wheels are on 757s.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
2. There is no evidence that the passengers from flight 77 were in the building


Yes, there is. They found human remains of the passengers. They found body parts. Body parts of people that just took off less than ninety minutes earlier. How do you explain that? The plane crashed there. That's how I explain it. Your turn.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 03:43 AM
link   
I just look at the pictures of the building collapses, and it is absolutely clear that these buildings were destroyed intentionally via some kind of demolition. I may have had slight doubts about #1 & 2, but building #7 signed the deal on the dotted line for me...


I spent years trying to explain it to my satisfaction, but couldn't. Then I cried.


My how we have got some work to do...



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ianr5741
 


Yet the architectural community disagrees with you and has even set about learning from the mistakes made from the design of the twin towers and improving designs...
Hmmmmm...

You really gotta ask yourself how much of it is you just not wanting to see for whatever reason.

Or did the conspiracy just expand? How long til it includes everyone BUT the "truther" community?

[edit on 2-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
There are no official reports or hard evidence that supports the official story.


Another one-liner on life support?

There's tons of evidence available to anyone who cares to look and probably just as much again yet to be released and it all supports the official story. The story itself is based on that evidence so, unfortunately for your frequent claim, the evidence supports the story.

The wheel is a good example of evidence and we even have your admission that it could have come from a 757. Do any aircraft that are not Boeing 757 variants use that wheel? I haven't located any but I welcome any further information on it.

Please show the evidence that, beyond a reasonable doubt, proves the officially supported version of events wrong.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 



Well, there ARE plenty of architects, engineers, and professionals in science fields who are saying publicly that these buildings were not brought down by planes/fires.


www.ae911truth.org...


And a great many of other respectable people saying the same thing.


www.patriotsquestion911.com...


Do you just ignore these people outright?



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by ianr5741
 


Yet the architectural community disagrees with you and has even set about learning from the mistakes made from the design of the twin towers and improving designs...
Hmmmmm...

You really gotta ask yourself how much of it is you just not wanting to see for whatever reason.

Or did the conspiracy just expand? How long til it includes everyone BUT the "truther" community?

[edit on 2-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]

www.metacafe.com...

Yeah, you need to do your research bud.

The designer himself said the WTC should have been fine afteR MULTIPLE airline collisions.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Admit it....you just are using other's sources.....you have none of your own....Or, Do you??


When are you going to admit you have no sources to support your fantasy or the official story.

I can nad have psoted facts and evindece from professional and government research sites.

If you want to compasre resources i will be glad to post them after you post your resources.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, as I mentioned on another thread....I am not computer savvy enough to 'pull' stuff from the internet.....I write what I know, what I experienced. This is what I offer to the discussions, my knowledge.

Thing is, when people pull stuff from the various internet sources, they tend to bring in whatever supports their 'claims'....and ignore that which contradicts it....

So....I don't resort to that kind of mis-information....AND, I can see BS when I see it.

WW

[edit].....that was a really dumb sentence..."I can see BS when I see it"!!! I was distracted when I wrote it. Point I was trying to make, I have a lifetime of aviation experience....and if I SEE something, or READ something that doesn't make sense, then I will point it out.

Much has been postulated about the events of 9/11....theories all over the place....seems to me, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Does that make me naive? Perhaps. I cannot do the impossible....I cannot go back in time and see what really happened on that day....but I can only say, I saw the events go down, I was glued to the TV all day. I felt my house shake when the Pentagon collapsed. I truly, truly wish the passengers of UAL93 had gotten control....because that airplane could have been landed safely, with help from people on the ground....TALKING them through it, not controlling it!

Heck! My 'edit' is longer than my original post!! LOL!!! signing off....

[edit on 5/2/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
....I write what I know, what I experienced. This is what I offer to the discussions, my knowledge.


I also use my knowlegde and experience, plus tons of professional and government research sources.

I do research as part of my work for the government so i have sources that most people do not have access to.

Here is just a partial list of the unclassified sites i use.


www.faa.gov
www.fbi.gov
www.aeronautics.ru
www.airforce-technology.com
www.militaryperiscope.com
www.trackingthethreat.com
www.cicentre.com
www.ctstudies.com
www.dtic.mil
www.globalsecurity.org
www.emergency.com
www.cfrterrorism.org
www.defenselink.mil
www.defendamerica.mil
www.dod.mil




[edit on 2-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by zerbot565



now heres the fluke on 9/11

several of the hi jackers presented as evidience are alive ( + that atta was/is an asset of the u.s goverment )

why did the planes fly in to the building

why did the buildings collape

why did wtc 7 go down

why has no one in charge of the operations been charged with anything

why did dick order a stand down on norad and why did he continue to keep it that way



Zerbot... Dude...I am far from a great speller, but GEESH... your English teacher would not be very proud of you.

Anyway...back to your question. You signed up here almost a year ago. I would have to say ALL of what you have questioned has been answered. Those able to think can see the facts that answer all your questions. All of your "flukes" are not flukes at all.



well they are flukes if its a friendly operation in which troops have "live " exerzizes in/over civilian soil ,

well technicly they arent civilians and technicly they aint troops but i hiope you get what im getting at , the same goes for the london bombings

by ignoring the fact that there was an exerzise or several is just plain neglect

i signd up on ats for ufo´s and suff far from this 9/11 mumbu jumbo ,

crap.teurasporsaat.org...



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
....I write what I know, what I experienced. This is what I offer to the discussions, my knowledge.


I also use my knowlegde and experience, plus tons of professional and government research sources.

supposed knowledge and experience.
Also posting links means nothing if you can't understand what's on them.


I do research as part of my work for the government so i have sources that most people do not have access to.

No proof of this of course.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights
www.metacafe.com...

Yeah, you need to do your research bud.

The designer himself said the WTC should have been fine afteR MULTIPLE airline collisions.


Actually, you're the one who needs to do some research. That's not the designer. That's Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center. The designers were Leslie Robertson and John Skilling. John Skilling died in 1998. Leslie Robertson believes the fire brought the towers down. Let me guess, he's "in on it" too, right?



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ianr5741

I just look at the pictures of the building collapses, and it is absolutely clear that these buildings were destroyed intentionally via some kind of demolition.


No, it isn't. Quite the contrary: www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
supposed knowledge and experience.
Also posting links means nothing if you can't understand what's on them.

No proof of this of course.


1. I can post my military transript that show my education and background. Can you post documents to support your background ?

2. I can post my National Cryptologic School transcript to show my government education and courses taken. Can you show documents of your education ?

[edit on 2-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ianr5741
 


Thats funny.
All that I have seen say the opposite of what your claiming and how many times til you people get it through your thick skull damage + fire makes buildings fall down. Stop separating the two as if they did not exist at the same time.
I mean seriously all you hear separately is the same old one line bs interchangeably. Never do you people put the factors together.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Double Eights
 


Yea, right.
Considering the fact just yesterday I watched a show with the guy who designed them singing a different tune as he was talking about the design improvements on the Shanghai Financial Bldg.


More "truther" delusion.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 05:57 AM
link   
415&417m collapsing in own footprint.Statisticly:0.00..% possibility.I dont even wanna start the math,because its simply ridiculous.

Btw,registered 2 wish the thruthers here good luck and i hope you guys dont become disencouraged by these govTOOLS.Keep up the good fight



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Thats funny.
All that I have seen say the opposite of what your claiming and how many times til you people get it through your thick skull damage + fire makes buildings fall down.


Thats real funny because even the NIST computer model states that the damage and fire DID NOT casue the buildings to fall down along with most other reports.

You really shoud do research instead of just believing in the official story fantasy.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join