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: 85
10
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


What war did the attack on the USS Liberty drum up public support for? Can you please answer this question?




posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
sorry I missed the pentagon diagram, could you either point it out or repost it?



Hers it is, its the basic wall construction, not the newer recontruction.
i114.photobucket.com...


Thanks for the info. I was surprised to see that the wall was only 24 inches thick.
As a comparison, a normal residential building, 3 stories high requires a foundation wall of 10 inches thick.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
The pilots wouldn't call the SR-71 the "Lead Sled" if it was mostly made of titanium...


Please be adult enough to answer a simple question that i have ben asking.

Do you have any evidence to debate my statements, YES or NO ?

[edit on 18-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Well consider it was more or less hastily put together in the middle of a swamp at a time when building codes weren't as strict. Wartime economy meant that as little steel was used as possible. Over half a million pounds of sand were dredged locally to make the concrete.
It has five floors above ground and atleast two basement levels. As you said, it would never pass code were it built today.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Thanks for the info. I was surprised to see that the wall was only 24 inches thick.
As a comparison, a normal residential building, 3 stories high requires a foundation wall of 10 inches thick.


Well you have to consider to that the renovation also added reinforments.

The fact remains that it would be almost impossable for a aluminum airframe to cause the amont of penatration and damage that the official story likes to state.

I mean even small birds can put holes in the wings and airframe. Hitting one, singel light pole can shear off a large section of wing.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please be adult enough to answer a simple question that i have ben asking.

Do you have any evidence to debate my statements, YES or NO ?


I have reason enough to debate your veracity when you first say "mostly steel," then say "40% steel/50% aluminum," then say "not mostly aluminum". I think most people would.

Edit: Could you also let me know how the government let the Liberty attack happen and what war that drummed up support for?


[edit on 18-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Hitting one, singel light pole can shear off a large section of wing.


Citation please?

I'd like to see this effect in a 757.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by scottie18

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scottie18
Evidence? Do you mean like your claims about the steel in the F4 where you put certain lines in bold that say nothing about steel?


You are the exact type of person who make people laugh at conspiracy theory believers


1. I have posted lots of information and sources that state the amount of steel in the F-4. Just like

The fact of the J-79 engine needing the large steel heatshield.

The fact of the Keel and rear sections are made from steel.

The Germans would not call the F-4 the "IRON HOG" if as mostly made of aluminum.

A pilot would not call his plane "STEEL STALLION" if it was mostly made of aluminum.

2. When have i ever stated anything about a conspiracy theory? The only conspiracy theory is the official story thats based on a conspiracy.


[edit on 18-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


1) So the "proof" you posted is you saying that certain parts are steel (does not prove that "most" of the plane is steel and even you said 40% which is not "most.") and nicknames that people gave the planes....because we all know that nicknames are assigned based on exactly what the object or person is made of.


2) So an official story exists and you spend all of your time trying to rebunk it (saying the government is behind it) but you don't think that you are a conspiracy theorist?!?!?!

I can't wait for your response...it's going to be a laugh riot....again.


bump, since I can't wait for Ultima to respond.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by Disclosed
 


Every thread becomes "what Ultima thinks and why 'believers' are immature and stupid" I'm surprised you didn't know that rule...
I'm not sure why an a/c at high speed would find it "almost impossible" to penetrate a wall, but I'm interested to hear the reasoning in a perverse way. Perhaps "most" of the energy would have been absorbed by the trees and light poles infront of the Pentagon...


Ya know the fact that NSA agent Ultima posts here so often actually helps prove that 19 hijackers were able to get into the country and pull off 9/11. You see if NSA agents are able to spend so much time posting on chat boards, obviously they wouldn't have a lot of free time to look for National Security Problems



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by Disclosed
 


Every thread becomes "what Ultima thinks and why 'believers' are immature and stupid" I'm surprised you didn't know that rule...
I'm not sure why an a/c at high speed would find it "almost impossible" to penetrate a wall, but I'm interested to hear the reasoning in a perverse way. Perhaps "most" of the energy would have been absorbed by the trees and light poles infront of the Pentagon...


Ya know the fact that NSA agent Ultima posts here so often actually helps prove that 19 hijackers were able to get into the country and pull off 9/11. You see if NSA agents are able to spend so much time posting on chat boards, obviously they wouldn't have a lot of free time to look for National Security Problems


1) Classic post! Great stuff!

2) Anyone have a link to where he claimed to be NSA? That thread has to be funnier then this one.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Ya know the fact that NSA agent Ultima posts here so often actually helps prove that 19 hijackers were able to get into the country and pull off 9/11. You see if NSA agents are able to spend so much time posting on chat boards, obviously they wouldn't have a lot of free time to look for National Security Problems


My pet theory is the NSA deliberately hired a bunch of analysts with 3rd grade educations rendering themselves unable to predict or stop an attack. My alternate theory is that the NSA has employees post things on the web that make conspiracy theories all look silly so that the public is turned off by them and will not hunt for the real truth. I haven't proven either so far -- it's just a working hypothesis...



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As far as a conspiracy, the official story is based on a conspiracy of the terrorist planning and hijacking planes.

But aside from that,
There is plenty of evidence that the government had plenty of warning about something happening around that time and even knew it would involve hijackaings.

So the queston becomes why did the government not do anything like raise the security levels at the airports?


One word:
Incompetence.
It's really that simple



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

My pet theory is the NSA deliberately hired a bunch of analysts with 3rd grade educations rendering themselves unable to predict or stop an attack. My alternate theory is that the NSA has employees post things on the web that make conspiracy theories all look silly so that the public is turned off by them and will not hunt for the real truth. I haven't proven either so far -- it's just a working hypothesis...


You should throw this in the alternate 9/11 theory thread! On the surface, it...actually makes sense. Of course highly unprovable.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I hear a lot about the administration deliberately allowing(or causing) the attack to drum up public support for the war. In my mind, I haven't really seen anything that would lead me to believe that the administration really gives a damn about public opinion. Public opinion says there should be an immediate withdrawal, but I don't see anything happening there. If this administration wanted to go to war, it was going to war; public opinion be damned.


Public opinion also shows that both Bush and Cheney should be impeached.
Public opinion shows that we believe the Bush administration lied to get us into Iraq.
Public opinion shows that the Bush administration has the lowest level of public support in American history.

If they cared about public opinion in any way, they would have done something about what you posted plus all those other items. Obviously public opinion didn't matter in the grand scheme of things.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K

Originally posted by _Del_

My pet theory is the NSA deliberately hired a bunch of analysts with 3rd grade educations rendering themselves unable to predict or stop an attack. My alternate theory is that the NSA has employees post things on the web that make conspiracy theories all look silly so that the public is turned off by them and will not hunt for the real truth. I haven't proven either so far -- it's just a working hypothesis...


You should throw this in the alternate 9/11 theory thread! On the surface, it...actually makes sense. Of course highly unprovable.


But our resident NSA man is all the proof we need. Let's take a look just from this thread:

1) He says the F4 is mostly made of steel and then posts numbers that show it isn't.
2) He uses a nickname as proof of his steel assertion and then tells someone else that a nickname proves nothing.
3) He claims that saying the government is actually responsible for 9/11 is not a conspiracy theory.

Do we need any more evidence?



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
You should throw this in the alternate 9/11 theory thread! On the surface, it...actually makes sense. Of course highly unprovable.


It's all speculative. I wouldn't actually slander the NSA by saying it was proven. That wouldn't be fair.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by scottie18
Evidence? Do you mean like your claims about the steel in the F4 where you put certain lines in bold that say nothing about steel?


You are the exact type of person who make people laugh at conspiracy theory believers


1. I have posted lots of information and sources that state the amount of steel in the F-4. Just like

The fact of the J-79 engine needing the large steel heatshield.

The fact of the Keel and rear sections are made from steel.

The Germans would not call the F-4 the "IRON HOG" if as mostly made of aluminum.

A pilot would not call his plane "STEEL STALLION" if it was mostly made of aluminum.

2. When have i ever stated anything about a conspiracy theory? The only conspiracy theory is the official story thats based on a conspiracy.


[edit on 18-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Your own posts show that there was only 40% steel which is not MOSTLY. Mostly would be at least over 60% at a minimum. Please drop this as you have been proven wrong by your own post. Thanks.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Also, the same administration so worried about public opinion that they would kill their own citizens in an attack on unprecedented scale, conveniently either forgot to or was unable to plant contraband in Iraq...
I mean if they could rig holograms or remote control airliners, I'd imagine it'd be no sweat to find some contraband in the middle of the desert. Then their crusade would be justified and public opinion would be on their side -- that's the single determining factor in their agenda!



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Very true. This whole Iraq War would have gone over a lot better if they did actually dig up a stockpile of WMDs and shown them to the world.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Thanks for the info. I was surprised to see that the wall was only 24 inches thick.
As a comparison, a normal residential building, 3 stories high requires a foundation wall of 10 inches thick.


Well you have to consider to that the renovation also added reinforments.

The fact remains that it would be almost impossable for a aluminum airframe to cause the amont of penatration and damage that the official story likes to state.

I mean even small birds can put holes in the wings and airframe. Hitting one, singel light pole can shear off a large section of wing.



What type of re-enforcement was added to the 24 inch thick wall? That wasn't in the photo you posted.

I believe with the old building codes, a 24 inch thick structural concrete wall would be the minimum thickness for a 5 story building



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join