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 Debunk Discussion... Please Read

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


OR would that have BECOME the official media story?


this is not a one line post


[edit on 4-7-2008 by Damocles]




posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
OR would that have BECOME the official media story?


The official media story was already set in motion as soon as the second plane hit.

As soon as the second plane hit the media stated it was a terrorist attack, even though the Department of Defense stated it was an alleged terrorist attack later in the day. (i guess the media has more resources then the DoD)


[edit on 4-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


What else would anyone think caused 2 planes to hit 2 adjacent buildings within a period of just minutes?

I know I didn't need the media or the military to get that thought on the day.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
What else would anyone think caused 2 planes to hit 2 adjacent buildings within a period of just minutes?


Well what if the planes were not flown by hijackers, then would it still be considered a terrorist act?



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The official media story was already set in motion as soon as the second plane hit.

As soon as the second plane hit the media stated it was a terrorist attack, even though the Department of Defense stated it was an alleged terrorist attack later in the day. (i guess the media has more resources then the DoD)


[edit on 4-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]


but WTC7 was still standing, so for them to come along and say that FDNY had dropped WTC7 wouldnt change the rest of the story and would have saved them a lot of headache later on.

IF the IC had dropped WTC7 FEMA and NIST and the 911 commission wouldnt have been confused about it, it wouldnt be a secret.

so, for me, i guess i cant believe that the IC had anyone drop WTC7.

it was either done by "THEM" as part of the operation or it just fell. i have nothing to convince me it was a CD other than it just fell straight down so that narrows down the options for me pretty quickly.

again, just my opinion



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
i have nothing to convince me it was a CD other than it just fell straight down so that narrows down the options for me pretty quickly.


Which brings up the question how did it fall straight down if there was so much damage to the one side as the official story states?



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


i wont even speculate on that one. outside my area of expertise, so anything i type would be pure opinion based on nothing.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
i wont even speculate on that one. outside my area of expertise, so anything i type would be pure opinion based on nothing.


Well thats all the people that believe the official story have is pure opinion and that has not stopped them from stating what happened.

I thought you were the "demo guy" ?


[edit on 4-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well thats all the people that believe the official story have is pure opinion and that has not stopped them from stating what happened.

I thought you were the "demo guy" ?


[edit on 4-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]


and ive said all along, i have no idea why any of the towers DID fall, however based on my experience and what ive seen i have a good idea of why the towers DID NOT fall. in my opinion, they were NOT brought down by high explosives.

you have read the debate i had on this topic last spring right? id be happy to provide the link to it again if you'd like. i even did the calculations in it.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well what if the planes were not flown by hijackers, then would it still be considered a terrorist act?


I guess it would come down to what you define as an act of terror. For me it's the deliberate destruction of property and causing civilian casualties for political purposes in a violent manner. The first one could have been passed off as a terrible accident but 2 in an hour, a stone's throw apart, makes it hard to think it was anything but terrorism especially when you factor in the '93 attack on the very same site.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
they were NOT brought down by high explosives.


If you read my post i do not talk about high explosives being used.

High explosives would not account for all the molten metal and steel found.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Yea, the attempt by some to twist Silversteins reference to 'pull' the building to mean 'pull' the firefighters out of the building, shows the desperation & lengths the the perper'traitors' will go to to try and cover up the truth.

I dont consider people that push this line 'misguided'. No-one could be simple enough to draw that conclusion from what he said. They are simply outright liars, and exposed as liars, it shows a massive cover-up.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by Nonchalant]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Yea, the attempt by some to twist Silversteins reference to 'pull' the building to mean 'pull' the firefighters out of the building,


Specailly when all the fire chiefs state that the firemen were out of the buidlings earlier in the day (before the call was made).



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Yea, the attempt by some to twist Silversteins reference to 'pull' the building to mean 'pull' the firefighters out of the building,


How about pulling firefighters out of the collapse zone?

I believe that they were still looking for survivors from 1 and 2's collapse, and 1's life saving efforts were inside the footprint of the expected zone of 7's collapse.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
How about pulling firefighters out of the collapse zone?


You should read the reports from the fire chiefs like Chief Hayden. It states the timeline the firemen were evacuated from the buildings collapse zone instead of just making statments.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


You add nothing useful to any discussion, IMHO.

I'm sure that you have some quote mined source from a CT site that you believe to be evidence.

Nobody's interested anymore.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


actually, Ultima is right...
there is no way he could have been referring to the firefighters...
They were out of the building and had been for HOURS...
and WHO in their right mind refers to multiple people as "it"?

yeah, "Pull it"... must have meant, "Pull the firefighters out"...
give me a break...
worst argument ever...



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy

actually, Ultima is right...
there is no way he could have been referring to the firefighters...
They were out of the building and had been for HOURS...
and WHO in their right mind refers to multiple people as "it"?



Ultima is never right about anything. Ever....

The decision to evacuate the collapse zone was given around 2:30.

And try to keep up with the discussion here. I never stated that they were inside the building anyway. So don't make stuff up, eh? It just makes you look worse than you already do.

"It" means the teams.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Seymour,

you mean Silverstein didn't admit on a PBS Documentary that he along with the FDNY decided to take down WTC7 via controlled demolition?



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


actually, if i may say so, I look pretty good...

lol

if you think that he meant to pull the "teams" out, yet no one was in the building, then youre not making any sense and I'm not the one making things up.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join