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.

 

911 To Many Coincidences Were Made To Happened!

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


Um, I don't know...maybe because that entire day was a gigantic charlie foxtrot of panic and no one knowing precisely what to do.

I know, it's hard to believe that could happen during the biggest attack on our soil in 50 years, but just try to imagine.



Odd, how IT didn't collapse.


Quite odd, considering the buildings are not structurally the same, not nearly the same height, and one wasn't hit by an airplane..

But brilliant comparison.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by thrashee]




posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
Nobody who does their research could claim mistakes were not made & lies were not told that day… but that doesn’t mean anyone in our government planned this. Frankly, I don’t take one person’s word on anything, but when the OVERWHELMING amount of people (experts, witnesses, etc) & EVIDENCE support the general story…


Oh REALLY? It would seem that most experts are unsure. Experts in military, scientists, witnesses, government workers, service workers, and on and on, that are certain that the OTC (Official Conspiracy Theory) is contrived bunk are in the majority over those who believe the lie and support it. And in fact, many of those "experts" who do support the OTC can be shown to have an interest (like the ones at Popular Mechanics...)

Wretched sods. May the Universe deal with them appropriately.


why would you think some guy used the word explosion or a 40 year old building needed maintenance? After 7 years, wouldn’t something be able to prove a theory for Controlled Demolition? There have been so many theories, it’s just odd that the basic concept of 9/11 still fits, as it always will, the general story.


Aside from the fact that computer models must be strained to the max to remotely approach explaining what happened (like that NOVA pancake theory that looked good until...you asked what happened to the central core - that was still standing in their model), and that models of controlled demo are easy as pie to construct to explain what happened - especially if you add a directed energy weapon to pulverize the concrete.

No OCT model explains the powdered concrete (or much of the rest, for that matter), and even controlled demo is hard pressed to do so (though it can explain the tidy lengths of support).

But you keep on believing what you believe.


I was a volunteer fireman for 4 years too, so that makes my opinion more valuable.


R. O. F. L. Yeah, dude. I'm sure it is worth more than seven years of very intense research. Can you drop out of your arrogant sky?


I also should add that I think that Cashlink’s excuse for bad grammar is absolutely disgusting, almost offensive.


Now if that isn't a disinfo tactic right out of the book, I don't know what is. Attack the messenger. I roll my eyes. I don't care about his grammar, spelling, punctuation or syntax. I look at the point he is making. I had no issues following his post, and that you did might suggest that you are not as bright as you think you are (and that maybe my research trumps your Vol. Fireman experience by leaps and bounds).


Add his poor character to the list with believing everything he reads, poor grammar & very poor skills in forming an opinion.


You must be new at this character assassination tactic. Either that or there's no hope for you in the Agency. That was the most unskilled attempt I have seen to date.

Try again next time.

[edit on 8/19/2008 by Amaterasu]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
You know, I find it so funny that we are not aloud to express our own opinions in here with out insulting each other, even when both sides dont have all the answers.

Both sides of 911 theories lacks creditable evidents.
I thought we were in here to work together.

Let me ask this, what have both sides agreed on about 911 that is not the Government version?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   


Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 a.m., when two Air Force F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were on a routine training mission were asked by the FAA to intercept it. The F-16s did not reach the Learjet, but an Air Force F-15 fighter from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that also was asked to locate it got within sight of the aircraft and stayed with it from 11:09 a.m. to 11:44 a.m., when the military fighter was diverted to St. Louis for fuel


www.washingtonpost.com...

But im sure you will just claim that all the news organizations changed their stories in their archives.............
10:08 AM EDT...FAA notifies Air Force about Payne Stewart's plane
11:09 AM EDT...Air Force catches up to Payne Stewart's plane

One hour from notification to interception.....



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut


Wow. That was done by a fire in a high-rise building in less than an hour??? Oh, now you know THAT ain't true.


What about the plane impacts? Bet they lied about the insulation being stripped, I don't see anything big about this 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy event, so you?


That insulation was irrelevant. There is no way, with the steel structure wicking away heat, from fires that than burned less than an hour, for the steel throughout the building to weaken and completely collapse.

Ah, f'get it. I'm off to do something more constructive against the NWO than to repetitively deal with their toadies' BS on the 9/11 issue.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


"one wasn't hit by an airplane.. "

The towers were designed for impacts from airplanes

link



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot


No, but NICE TRY!

The reports pre-9/11 have the jets intercepting within minutes. Only after the 9/11 commission reports does it have the jets intercepting after an hour and a half.

Why the change?


It didn't change -- only the 9/11 propagandists poped-up and smokescreened your @$$... and you lap it up gleefully.

"At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response"

www.ntsb.gov...

NTSB - October 1999



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Since everyone is putting in photos, let's look at the photo of the Windsor Tower fire.




And here it is after burning for 18 hours.




Odd, how IT didn't collapse.


Odd how you didn't notice all the COLLAPSED WARPED Steel.




posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Sarcasm is a sign of weakness. There are ways to, of course, melt and cut through steel, yes, by not from air plain fuel. And that is what appear to be used to bring down the towers.

Remember, the steel beans in the towers were not ordinary steel beans, like any other building may use. They were created to withstand AIR PLAINS attacks and hurricane winds. No modern building in the history of buildings has ever collapsed due to fire, much less in a control demolition style. If the damage part of the building would have toppled to the side after, let's say, an entire 3 days of burning, I would have been more convinced. Not to say that the fire was just on the damaged floors and the smoke coming out was dark,which means it wasn't intense. When the plains went into the buildings, and explosion occurred and most of the fuel went in that explosion. but if you look very well, there were explosions as the plains were crashing, actually, milliseconds before the plains crashed into the buildings.

I go to the media and they would use NLP techniques to destroy me, like they have done with way better, more equipped people than me.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Beans? Plains? Sure you aren't a farmer?

Why_in_the_World would I believe anything you just said???

Especially your technical opinions.. WOW



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee
reply to post by thegrayone
 


Purdue University conducted tests and simulations to analyze the plausibility of the planes being able to take down the towers alone.
Link





Please sir follow this link, if you please.

www.roguegovernment.com...

PS. I don't trust any study funded by the government!

[edit on 8/8/2008 by thegrayone]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by danielsil18
reply to post by thrashee
 


"one wasn't hit by an airplane.. "

The towers were designed for impacts from airplanes

link


But they weren't designed for the fire protection to cover jet fuel.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by thegrayone
 


Yes, I found that. I agree that it's unfortunate for the purposes of this forum that the study was funded by the government. But practically speaking, I think you could view this either way:

On one hand, they funded it, so you might think the study was biased.

On the other, if the government didn't fund a study, you might suspect them of trying to back away from the data and leave it be.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I personally am not so jaded as to think that Purdue University (which I have high respect for, but I'm a Hoosier
) was bought off.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by cashlink

Another coincidences all three WTC fell faster than free fall.

This has never happened befor,but wait a min it has with Demolition!

Yes thats right Demoltion it can bring a building

down faster than free fall (Nothing else can).


Buidings can fall faster than "free fall" in a controlled demolition? Care to explain that? You DO know how controlled demolitions work, correct? Charges are set in key structural points of the building, exploded, and gravity brings the building down. Unless CD crews have found a way to alter gravity around their sites, that statement is just comical.


I'm curious as to how something can fall faster then terminal velocity, "free fall",without force being applied to the said object in question? When a support is taken out, the supported object just falls...it doesn't race gravity to the finish line, unless a weight greater then the sum of the section falling is applied above it downward.

There was no force above pushing down, nor could there have been, because every floor disintegrated in a downward wave. How could there have been a pancake effect, when no floors were left to be "pancaked" upon each other?

Perhaps you could do a demonstration to show everyone how concrete, meshed with steel lattice, "pulverizes" into a "baby powder" fine dust or how a section of tower beginning to fail by "tilting" off of it's base, doesn't continue in the direction it is tilting toward.

Right after that, you could explain how a kerosene fire, burning for 54 minutes, melted the support trusses at the damaged section of building and how this is tied into the remaining 77 undamaged floors beneath as to cause a total failure. (can't use pancake effect, cause you have to have floors for that or no syrup)

Then please explain to me, because I've never heard this discussed before, how that in New York City at 8:53am (The biggest Tourist City in the world) that the only videos to surface were no more then 7 or 8 videos that captured the events. New York City Man!!!...the biggest attack since Pearl Harbor!!! Thousands of tourists, who travel with cameras, just starting to roam the waking city, plus millions of native New Yorkers and all we could come up with was 7 or 8 tourist videos and hardly any pictures other then Network shots, nor any eyewitnesses that didn't work for the networks already giving account?

A woman who witnessed the pentagon crash said, she could "see the faces of the passengers and the horror they displayed on them through the windows of the jet, as if, time just slowed down". It seems to me, that no matter how much time was perceived to have slowed down, at 500+ miles per hour, that the official story places on the jets speed, it would be impossible to see the faces in the windows of the jet or the "Horror" they displayed, if you were lucky to even know what just went by you in the split second.

I'm open to you giving demonstrations. I'm open to your wisdom. We would all like some answers, because many seek truth.

What I am not open to, is someone who behaves in the manner you have towards the op by making fun of him while telling him what an "Adult" you are. Please use consideration when speaking with people, you might learn something new or make a new friend or many for that matter, unless you are opposed to that? In that case, perhaps it would be best to keep your opinions to yourself and not damage others because of your discontent for spelling errors. (see Buidings at the top)

Peace



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Dude, there is no 911 conspiracy. I've been to Afghanistan. Those people would have loved to have the honor of crashing a jet into a building, to fight the "Great white satan". Sorry, but I just can't accept it.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee
reply to post by thegrayone
 


Yes, I found that. I agree that it's unfortunate for the purposes of this forum that the study was funded by the government. But practically speaking, I think you could view this either way:

On one hand, they funded it, so you might think the study was biased.

On the other, if the government didn't fund a study, you might suspect them of trying to back away from the data and leave it be.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I personally am not so jaded as to think that Purdue University (which I have high respect for, but I'm a Hoosier
) was bought off.


I gotta tell you. From the answers that I've read from you (not too many, since I'm new here) IMHO, this is the most UNbiased answer from you. Besides your respect for Purdue and not thinking that it was bought off (which I understand) this answer was plain neutral. You didn't give an excuse! You just said it plain simple; you understand the implications for the government funding it, but it doesn't mean that they were bought off and they were dishonest. Please, believe me, I'm not being sarcastic with you!

I go to many websites where they support the official story of 9/11, because I need to know what they have to say, and I read through the entire post or posts. I know of people that go to just websites that talk about what they just want to hear and get their info from those sites of the other corner; and we all know how we can manipulate quotes , specially if the person is not there to defend him/herself. When I hear talks about somebody else, I usually go the other person's page to see what he has to say.

I find this website interesting: www.debunking911.com...
But of course when I read through all he has to say, his sources are Government funded, the official story tellers, government affiliated agencies or companies or the government itself. and we know how we feel about that. Of course, it is so far what I have seen, I haven't read all of the claims.

Each side looks for example to give, one side debunks the other and the other debunks the debunk that the other side just did, and so on and on...

Based on all the reading I have done since that tragic day, it is in my opinion that 9/11 was an inside job.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


I seriously question who you represent... 911 was a inside job... a 5 year old can discern this.. Who do you work for?



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Ranger23
[more

If you have been to afhanstan the you would know how crude these people are... On top of this.. Bin laden is saudi arabian.. so are most of the Hijackers.Afghanistanian people had nothing to do with 911 neither did Iraqis..



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Ranger23
 


So you are telling me these Hijackers were able to fly with military like precision? Do you understand how difficult it would have been to target the pentagon at 500 mph? also the descent and heading according to many pilots would be impossible in that aircraft... Either you work for Cointel, Army or just blind.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by gavron
 


I seriously question who you represent... 911 was a inside job... a 5 year old can discern this.. Who do you work for?


Enough with the ad hom attacks. There is absolutely no reason you need to insult someone like this just because they do not see things as you do.

And the accusation that he "works" for someone...go check out a new thread about how people accuse others of being "disinfo" agents when they have no other logical response to someone.




top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join