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.

 

**New 9/11 docs destroy official story**

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   
9/11 mysteries - demolitions

Loose Change - Final Cut

Who killed John O'neil

Fabled Enemies

I challenge anyone to show me a believable documentary that shows the contary, I will put in the time and watch, if you do the same.

Feel free to add more...

Vote Ron Paul 2008! Get rid of the mob.

Stars and Flags are reccommended = )





[edit on 10-9-2008 by Looking4LikeMindz]




Posting video links - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ
* Link
* Description
* Review/Opinion




[edit on 10/9/2008 by Sauron]




posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   
What if I have already watched all of those videos and find them to be erronious, sophmoric webjunk of the highest order?

Does that make me a sheep...or a shill?

What does your propagandist say I should be categorized as?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   
[edit on 10-9-2008 by Looking4LikeMindz]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   
That really didn't make sense..but Ok, whatever floats your boat.

There are many sources of good information out there.

To limit your research to conspiracy documentaries sells yourself short.

You should definately get as many angles of a research subject as possible before comming to a conclusion.

and Yes, even if some of those angles are all boring and not packaged as "web Thrill0rz"



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Can you link them?

Why dont you watch one of these you havent seen? I KNOW you havent seen them all.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   
I have seen them all. Cept, I kinda dozed off during Final-cut,

2nd edition of Loose change was more "thumpin'" although still ridiculously WRONG, heh.

Ok here are some links:

vids.myspace.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.911mysteriesguide.com...

www.911myths.com...

www.rcfp.org...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

By my account you should view/read four of these links to be objective in your quest for information in this specific thread.






[edit on 10-9-2008 by Taxi-Driver]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 



I've never seen Fabled Enemies, I'm watching it right now. This is one of the best ones that's about who was really behind the attacks, which to me, is more important than anything else.

I doubt you watched it. But ignorant is bliss, stay that way.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Well , I watch Jason Bermas' Fabled Enemies a week or so ago.

I watched Final Cut about a week after it was released too.

It has been a while since I watched 9/11 mysteries or Who killed John Oneil.

I have also watched terrorstorm, freedom to facism, the original looseChange, Press for truth, The Pentacon (Bwhaha), The nutcase Lucas' Ultimate con, many more, sheeze.. too many to remember. The market is saturated.

Jim if you are interested in the perps of 9/11 you should watch that first link I put up there. It has some good information in it, but you have to watch the whole thing to realize the gravity of the content.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
To limit your research to conspiracy documentaries sells yourself short.


Thats funny since beleivers only limit their reseach to what the media tells them.

I have yet to see beleivers produce any real research done.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Hello TD or ULTIMA1, first let me say I am not a contributor to 9/11 forums. I just wanted to ask a question. A friend of mine forwarded me what he tells me is a yet to be released documentary on 9/11. For personal reasons which I explain here, I cannot watch it, at least not yet.
It's called "ZERO di Giulietto Chiesa" and unfortunately it is in Italian so I don't know if it is useful. Also I want to be mindful of not breaking the t&c, I'm not sure how they feel about file sharing. Anyway he tells me it is good but I have no way to know. Though I speak Italian I just can't watch it.
What should I do?

Edit: This is a question for everyone really. I was going to post it om this thread to add to the discussion but I'm not sure how to do that.






[edit on 9/10/2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:59 AM
link   
9/11myths.com He does what all the spinners do. Whatever they can. In reference to the molten metal, now there is no way out of that one, EXCEPT... discrediting the sources of that info. He even goes to discredit FEMA saying there was a typo and the peice of steel lodged in an adjacent building was 60k not 600k. With this strategy nothing is ever possible to prove, because you can make it as lengthy of an arguement as you need to, until:

A - they give up
B - they lose focus
C - You break them and they admit there is no way to prove it

But there is proof. Why did they find bone fragments blocks away on the rooftop of duetsch(not spelled right) bank? I mean I can go on and on and you will be telling me about wind speed. The fragmenting occurred due to weathering. I mean... to save an endless battle with you, thank you for showing me those sites. But they are worse than any of the conspiracy stuff i've seen.

The "If you cant prove it without a shadow of a doubt then you are WRONG" arguement is old. It's an empty arguement meant to distract the other person.

As for the pentagon, I will concede, if I must, that a plane hit. So what? Still wasn't islamic fundamentalist terrorists.


Look at all the PROFIT!!! Now I can't list the tracing of the profit to the bad guys, but I guarantee anyone listed in these docs as being apart of this "conspiracy" made alot of money either from the incident itself, or ensuing weapons contracts -defense contracts, and so on and so on. It's so damn obvious. If there is money to be made people will do insidious things. Like you being a disinformant agent... Thats how ridiculous your plight to change the informed into the manipulated is. You should be getting paid for it.

I feel bad that you think we are crazy because we believe that those buildings where built better than that. That those buildings wherent just going to crumble on to themselves and turn into dust. Watching the video, with some of the knowledge just on the construction of the WTC alone, makes me shake my head in disbeleif. Im sorry Taxi, Im sorry you can not see.





[edit on 10-9-2008 by Looking4LikeMindz]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
To limit your research to conspiracy documentaries sells yourself short.


Thats funny since beleivers only limit their reseach to what the media tells them.

I have yet to see beleivers produce any real research done.



Well , there are a buttload of links right above ya, kiddo. Knock yerself out.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Well , there are a buttload of links right above ya, kiddo. Knock yerself out.


I asked for actual research. Like FOIA requests, e-mails. Things that i have done to find the truth.

Why are believers so afraid to do real reaserch?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:09 AM
link   
I believe this is the real question that people should be making documentaries about. Perhaps I will. Why are these people so agressively ignorant? Some of them seem to be intelligent, well articulate at least... I dunno, it's a shame.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Looking4LikeMindz
9/11myths.com He does what all the spinners do. Whatever they can. In reference to the molten metal, now there is no way out of that one, EXCEPT... discrediting the sources of that info. He even goes to discredit FEMA saying there was a typo and the peice of steel lodged in an adjacent building was 60k not 600k. With this strategy nothing is ever possible to prove, because you can make it as lengthy of an arguement as you need to, until:

A - they give up
B - they lose focus
C - You break them and they admit there is no way to prove it

But there is proof. Why did they find bone fragments blocks away on the rooftop of duetsch(not spelled right) bank? I mean I can go on and on and you will be telling me about wind speed. The fragmenting occurred due to weathering. I mean... to save an endless battle with you, thank you for showing me those sites. But they are worse than any of the conspiracy stuff i've seen.

The "If you cant prove it without a shadow of a doubt so you are WRONG" arguement is old. It's an empty arguement meant to distract the other person.

As for the pentagon, I will concede, if I must, that a plane hit. So what? Still wasn't islamic fundamentalist terrorists.


Look at all the PROFIT!!! Now I can't list the tracing of the profit to the bad guys, but I guarantee anyone listed in these docs as being apart of this "conspiracy" made alot of money either from the incident itself, or ensuing weapons contracts -defense contracts, and so on and so on. It's so damn obvious. If there is money to be made people will do insidious things. Like you being a disinformant agent...


You WISH I was a disinfo agent! It makes you feel more important to think that the 9/11 truthers are some kind of legitimate threat or something..heh. Sorry to rain on your parade, I am just a dude who hates to see people scammed. Hates to see people get lied to.

For all I care 9/11 truthers could be saying the Russians did 9/11, or the Cubans, Or French.. I would still be pointing this stuff out because it is still WRONG.. ya see?


Thats how ridiculous your plight to change the informed into the manipulated is. I feel bad that you think we are crazy because we believe that those buildings where made better than that. That those buildings wherent just going to crumble on to themselves and turn into dust. Watching the video, with some of the knowledge just on the construction of the WTC alone, makes me shake my head in disbeleif. Im sorry Taxi, Im sorry you can not see.


Have you even been in the World Trade towers? I have. They were some big buildings, superstructures to be sure. They had some major flaws. To maximize floorspace they eliminated evenly-distributed support columns.
During their construction asbestos fireproofing was stopped/banned, and a cheaper spray-on fire suppressant was applied. ( at the time '1971' It didn't seem to be that big of a deal, in hindsight though, it was disastrous)

I think you grossly underestimate how catostrophic a fully loaded jetliner crashing into something can be. A hit like that would have sunk out best aircraft carrier, killed tens of thousands at a pro football stadium. Those were Big crashes, man, you cannot see that?




posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Well , there are a buttload of links right above ya, kiddo. Knock yerself out.


I asked for actual research. Like FOIA requests, e-mails. Things that i have done to find the truth.

Why are believers so afraid to do real reaserch?


All of that "stuff" you feel is legitimate can be found in the links above, Ultima. no surprize you didn't find that out on your own



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
I think you grossly underestimate how catostrophic a fully loaded jetliner crashing into something can be.


Its just too bad most reports (like the following 2) state that the buildings withstood the plane impacts.

www.firehouse.com...

The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework.


www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.



Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
All of that "stuff" you feel is legitimate can be found in the links above, Ultima. no surprize you didn't find that out on your own


Well no its not legitimate research, and no its not found in the links.

I am talking real research, why are belivers afraid to do real research to find the truth?



[edit on 10-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
I think you grossly underestimate how catostrophic a fully loaded jetliner crashing into something can be.


Its just too bad most reports (like the following 2) state that the buildings withstood the plane impacts.


What's even worse is the fact you didn't understand the importance of the spray-on fireproofing, and the term "Fully loaded."






 

Mod Edit: Personal comment removed. Please see Terms and Conditions of Use section 2) Behaviour and remember to go after the ball, not the player. Thank you - Jak

[edit on 10/9/08 by JAK]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
What's even worse is the fact you didn't understand the importance of the spray-on fireproofing, and the term "Fully loaded."


Well maybe you did not know about the 1975 fire in the North tower that burned for 3 hours (without fireproofing) and did not cause any damage to the steel. Yet we are supposed to believe that a fire lasting less then an hour did enough damage to the steel to cause the collapse.

Maybe you should look at the reports that state a large quanity of the fuel was burned off in the intial explosion and what was left burned off quckly.

Did you even read the reports that state the buildings withstood the planes impacts, "fully loaded" had nothing to do with the collapse?


when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising.




[edit on 10-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well maybe you did not know about the 1975 fire in the North tower that burned for 3 hours (without fireproofing) and did not cause any damage to the steel. Yet we are supposed to believe that a fire lasting less then an hour did enough damage to the steel to cause the collapse.

You mean with fireproofing. Also that fire was substantially smaller in size and fought by firefighters. There was of course also no plane impact.


Maybe you should look at the reports that state a large quanity of the fuel was burned off in the intial explosion and what was left burned off quckly.

Indeed it did, after igniting acres of flammable materials.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join