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.

 

A place for actual Proof of 9/11 events

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Ok, I have spent an awful lot of time here, before and after I registered, reading the various 9/11 threads. It is obvious that nothing but small petty arguments get taken up and the big picture alwasy fades away. I am sick of watching good points get passed over because a poster is more interested in saying what they think they already know then answering charges about the actual topic.

Here ya go.

NO bickering, no off topic, no back and forth for pages. All that needs be put here is PROOF. You run around a 9/11 thread claiming to be certain things are a certain way and that you can prove it. Here you go. This is the place to put all of that proof. Either way, back up the gov, dont, as long as everyone looking at it can agree that it is proof then fine.

Mod Edit: Thread Title Change At OP's Request.

[edit on 21/9/2008 by Mirthful Me]



+21 more 
posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I for one, without a PHD or Doctorate in any of the laws of engineering or physics have but one piece of evidence to offer and would submit it now as exibit 1.

Common Sense



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by imd12c4funn
 


Look, there are plenty of people running through these threads claiming that they have "already proven how the planes took down the buildings" as well as "already proved that plane went into the pentagon" and have already proven "the crash scene in PA is a plane crash." So...here is the place for them to put that proof. Even though they reference and brag about it, it seems nonexsistant. If you really want to get to the truth, you will let proof be posted here and keep your jokes about common sense out of it.

The fact that an empty sarcastic jab has already gotten 4 stars in a thread about PROOF that is not even an hour old yet, I would say that goes a long way toward revealing just how interested in the truth you all are. I guess people would rather see empty snark than any kind of evidence that might crush their long held beliefs.

[edit on 9/20/08 by MorningStar8741]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Common Sense is no joke.

Logic plays hand in hand. If in your reality common sense is a joke, then you could consider it a pun.

I consider it as the most important tool of life.

Or, if blindly walking across a busy street without looking both ways, the joke would be splattered all over someones bumper



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


It is not an empty sarcastic jab, anyone who has watched the countless hours of video footage, seen the documentaries, read through the websites, both official and truth movement and does not have this lalaland view of reality where government and rich folk can do no wrong, is forced, by sheer volume of evidence and unanswered questions to realise that there is a massive stink around 911.

There's plenty of proof thrown about the truth movement, the problem is people have been conditioned by a scientific dictatorship that understands the populations psychology just that little bit better than they understand themselves, to not be able to accept it. Why? Because they have been traumatised by fear into cognitive dissonance.

911 was an inside job, it's true, it's part of the group mind already and only scared ignorant people and people on the payroll of the culprits bother to say otherwise these days.

Sorry if I sound a bit agressive, it's not my intention, but there's no other way to say white is white and black is black.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
OK

Apparently people cannot read.

I will say this one last time.

There are plenty of 9/11 threads to troll if you just want to say stuff. I have posted a very specific goal here. If you are having trouble understanding it, U2U me. Should I really let you fill up this thread with an argument over whether or not the words "common sense" are proof? Do those words do anything at all? Can you win any court case by laying those words down as your only evidence?

NO.

This thread is about proof for the people who claim to have it. If you are running through 9/11 threads repeating "it has already been proven," or "I have already proved that," then put that proof here.

If you are a lonely narcisist that needs attention and is willing to step in front of any actual attempt at the truth just for your attention, please put it somewhere else.

I will not debate whether or not the words "Common sense" prove anything one way or the other. Proof.

PROOF

PROOF

can you read it? Have you philisophical debate over commmon sense on a thread about common sense or title it "stuff I already know," or even "I need to say something even though it has nothing to do with the thread."

Any of those seem nice places for you to go say these things. They do not fit here. I will not explain this thread again.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


It would seem that their intent was merely to try and reinforce the ideal that Common Sense should be first and foremost in any "juror's" mind.

... perhaps someone lost their's along the way. dunno.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Well stated. I rest my case. thank you



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Well, if you have to ask for proof after years of documentaries filled with such thing such as metalurgical evidence of thermite and impossible flightpaths and kinetic damage at the pentagon as well as the whole building 7 fiasco... perhaps you do need people to answer this thread in more detail than me... but that is just your lack of knowledge of the subject, in no way is it an indication of the state of affairs regarding the 911 truth movement.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Annie Mossity
 


OFF TOPIC

Common sense should always be in the forfront of any though process. I thought that common sense was a given. That is why I did not start a thread called "Please remind people of common sense, it is helpful when looking at evidence."

I guess anyone interested in the truth about 9/11 would either present the proof they brag of or sit back and read it.

Anyone afraid of what the truth might bring would continue to derail this thread with off topic rants about common sense. Ok, common sense, we got it. That should never be taken out of the equation so I do not understand why you need to post it 3 times then give yourself exactly 4 stars for it each time.

OK COMMON SENSE IS COVERED.

Now either offer proof or find a relevant thread to troll.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
DP

[edit on 9/20/08 by MorningStar8741]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
Well, if you have to ask for proof after years of documentaries filled with such thing such as metalurgical evidence of thermite and impossible flightpaths and kinetic damage at the pentagon as well as the whole building 7 fiasco... perhaps you do need people to answer this thread in more detail than me... but that is just your lack of knowledge of the subject, in no way is it an indication of the state of affairs regarding the 911 truth movement.


Can you even read? There are people on the 9/11 threads that claim it was already proven that this happend or that happend and you ramble on about years of documentaries of evidence of what? You do realize that everything you just claimed, there is someone on a thread right now saying they have proven it was all wrong. Would you now want them the opportunity to offer said "proof?" Or would you rather fill up this thread with empty propoganda?



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I understand the point you are trying to make with this thread, but you can't simply hash down an entire board topic into one thread. Thats just asking for problems. People have proved or disproved 9-11 theories on ATS for a long time. To ask everyone to come here and repost the same things they have probably posted a million times in previous 9-11 threads is kinda a waste of time. The search option should help you out if you are looking for proof. Why don't you tell us what your theory is or what you think is bull or true



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I was giving people an honest opportunity to offer the proof that they brag about and so far this thread has already been derailed with talk of common sense and years of documentairies. There are years of documentairies proving any case you want to make. There are "years" of documentaries 'proving' the planes were all holograms or not even seen in NY. What good do any, ANY of those do?

NOTHING

This thread is specifically for proof. It must be there because certain people keep bragging about it. I want to see it. I do not want to debate ideas of common sense and whether or not I have seen this doc or that one. Put the proof right here. Link to it. Show us exactly where to go get it.

That is it.

Anything else is off topic and that is it.

If you want the truth, stop trying to muddy it with personal arguments and petty bickering. Lets just see all of the "proof" out there.

Please do not make me alert to the mods over every off topic post because you are afraid what might fill up this thread if you were to keep your empty thoughts and attacks out of it.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by KaginD
I understand the point you are trying to make with this thread, but you can't simply hash down an entire board topic into one thread. Thats just asking for problems. People have proved or disproved 9-11 theories on ATS for a long time. To ask everyone to come here and repost the same things they have probably posted a million times in previous 9-11 threads is kinda a waste of time. The search option should help you out if you are looking for proof. Why don't you tell us what your theory is or what you think is bull or true



What does it matter what I think is true? I have no proof to offer. I do know that when I read these threads though, I see things like "I have already proven that, you just chose to ignore it." There is never any proof. Reread that thread 100 times you won't find it. I am giving those people a place to put it out there. They claim it is off topic to ask for it in another thread and will not provide it in the thread in which they claim they have already provided it so fine, provide it here, or keep quiet.

I thought that was rather simple and I truly thought that mature adult people with a desire for the truth would be able to shut their ego off and not bask in the glory of a new thread long enough to let it sit empty or be filled with all this evidence we all missed.

So sorry that so many people on ATS must have a post on a thread to feel good every minute but some threads just do not need your oppinions. If you have no proof to offer, why are you posting anything? If you disagree with my thread, U2U me. If you think it is worthy of derision, how about you just move along to one that you like better then?

Seriously, why is there such a desperater need to come to a thread about one specific thing, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE! that is it, and prattle on with your thoughts and ideas. This is not a diary or personal blog.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
simply put.. "there is no absolute proof" otherwise there would be no debate..
the best anyone can do is put up, what to them, is most reasonable.. or most likely..

for me the Pentagon was the key..

truther claim was: "there is no evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon, and further more it was impossible, due to the ground effects at the speed it was flying.. and there are no plane parts at the scene.. or they came from the wrong engine.. and the hole was way too small for a big Boeing..

that claim of "impossibility" has been thoroughly debunked..

engine parts analysis..
www.aerospaceweb.org...

wheel analysis..
www.aerospaceweb.org...

ground effect analysis..
www.aerospaceweb.org...

the hole in the Pentagon..
www.oilempire.us...

and here..
www.oilempire.us...

when I discovered how weak the truther arguments were on this so called "smoking gun" of 911 I started looking at the other claims being made and in every case, I found the the truther arguments based on false assumptions.. the focus then shifted to WTC7 (of course after the Pentagon nonsense was debunked).. and guess what.. the no plane hit it/free fall speed/Silversteen said pull it/no significant fires.. people came with the same weak, out of context evidence that they did with the Pentagon.. so for me "common sense" really is the only proof we may ever have.. maybe not so much a "proof" but a useful tool to help discover it..



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by pccat
 


So, you are saying that you have nothing either?

LOL, forgive me for not looking at all your links before responding. The first one was a joke so I thought, what else. I must now come back and point out that all 4 of your links are nothing but web pages that support what you want them to without any actual proof of the plane going into the pnetagon or anything else. How about website that explains where the wings went? Got one of those?

Proof would be something more than a website, wikipedia entry, quotes, hearsay.....I thought people at ATS knew better than to use just any old web page as some sort of legitimate proof of anything you have to say. So, as long as you feel you have the pentagon all wrapped up, have any actual proof? Where are the engines and the wings? Where did they go into the building? What did they completeley disintegrate into? When were the plane parts identified by serial number as belonging to the plane we were told that they did? When did rolls royce reverse it's statement that the "engine" part presented in photos as proof of the plane is not the engine that would have been on the plane we were told?

If you have any of that proof, or any at all, please feel free.

[edit on 9/20/08 by MorningStar8741]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by Zepherian
Well, if you have to ask for proof after years of documentaries filled with such thing such as metalurgical evidence of thermite and impossible flightpaths and kinetic damage at the pentagon as well as the whole building 7 fiasco... perhaps you do need people to answer this thread in more detail than me... but that is just your lack of knowledge of the subject, in no way is it an indication of the state of affairs regarding the 911 truth movement.


Can you even read? There are people on the 9/11 threads that claim it was already proven that this happend or that happend and you ramble on about years of documentaries of evidence of what? You do realize that everything you just claimed, there is someone on a thread right now saying they have proven it was all wrong. Would you now want them the opportunity to offer said "proof?" Or would you rather fill up this thread with empty propoganda?


Of course there is two sides to every debate, and here's a shocker, sometimes one of the sides is lieing through his/hers/their teeth. This is where common sense comes in. However, throughout the years of documentaries thrown up there comes a certain repitition of certain key aspects which other, more trustworthy because they have nothing to gain, people have declared through their own investigations to be true. Sure, the official position is contrary, but ffs they are the prime suspects.

The main problem with the 911 situation is the main suspects happen to be the trial judge, and in that sort of environment proof is a bit of a moot point, since it will simply be thrown out of the window with much the same contempt you seem to have for the people who support 911 truth here in your thread.

But I'll add more stuff: what about the Isrealis arrested and subsequently linked to Mossad and released in 911, what about the Cheney stand down order which is unquestioned testimony?, what about the totally out of the ordinary market movements prior to 911?, what about the 3 symmetrical collapses in NYC?, what about the NASA images of abnormal high temperature in the WTC debris pile?, what about the testimonies of police, firefighters and witnesses who all say explosions before collapse?, what about the expert testimony from demolition professionals? what about the many pilots saying its impossible for the terrorists to be able to do those maneuvers with their levels of training?, what about Silversteins insurance policies and "pull it" testimony?, what about the Bush - Bin Laden ties? what about a hundred other things I could post if I had the stamina?

What is proof to you? Thermal expansion?

Sorry, but you have to be joking if you even suggest the arguments against the truth movement have even a fraction of the credability, logic and truthfull ressonance to them. None of the official explanations hold up to a proof type argument, while a lot of the truther arguments do.

The lies around 911 are blatantly obvious.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
reply to post by pccat
 


So, you are saying that you have nothing either?


read my first sentence.. without a first hand account there can be no "absolute" proof..

but I did give you some objective analysis from the folks at aerospace web, that I do believe constitutes proof of the debunking of the impossibility claim.. did you read the links? there was evidence that would constitute proof for most researchers..

I'm sorry that I don't have definitive proof of either "inside job" or "official story", no one does except those who were there.. or those who may have done the planning..

but I did give proof of the engine parts that were in question, as belonging to a Rolls Royce RB211.. when it was stated that they were not..

as far as the wings? I don't know.. but if you pay close attention to that cheesy one_frame_per_second_ film of the object exploding into the Pentagon.. "common sense" might tell you that the wings full of fuel, caused the huge fireball.. and that is why its in small pieces.. what was left anyway..


When did rolls royce reverse it's statement that the "engine" part presented in photos as proof of the plane is not the engine that would have been on the plane we were told?


my first link proves that to be incorrect..


Since this article was first published, we have received several comments from readers citing a quote from Rolls-Royce spokesman John W. Brown who said, "It is not a part from any Rolls-Royce engine that I'm familiar with..." The critics go on to suggest that this statement disproves all of our analysis indicating the disk is a compressor stage from the Rolls-Royce RB211-535. However, a simple review of the source of this quote shows just the opposite. The material is from an article titled "Controversy Swirling Over September 11 Pentagon Mystery: Industry Experts Can't Explain Photo Evidence" written by Christopher Bollyn that appeared on the pro-conspiracy website American Free Press. The article describes John Brown as a spokesman for Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis, Indiana. This location is home to the Allison Engine factory that builds the AE3007H turbofan used aboard the Global Hawk. Brown's quote regarding the mystery wreckage states that, "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy." Furthermore, the article correctly notes that the RB211 is not built in Indianapolis but at the Rolls-Royce plant in Derby, England. Since Brown is a spokesman for Allison Engines, which was an independent company that only became a subsidary of Rolls-Royce in 1995, it stands to reason that an engine built in the United Kingdom would be one he's not "familiar with." The article even goes on to point out that Brown could not identify specific parts from one engine or another since he is not an engineer or assembly line technician who would be familiar with the internal components of turbine engines. For what it's worth (and it isn't worth much, given the author's apparent lack of journalistic skill), the Bollyn article actually supports the evidence assembled on this site. The article provides quotes from Honeywell Aerospace indicating that the piece did not come from an APU, from Allison Engines suggesting that it is not a component found in the turbofan used on Global Hawk, and from Teledyne Continental Motors indicating that it is not part of a cruise missile engine. All of these conclusions match those explained above.


www.aerospaceweb.org...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join