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.

 

Fox host: 9/11 truthers are 'mentally ill'

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
i only watch john steward, ats and what really happend dot com

I like fox news its a good comedy and its free...




posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


Just to put this into perspective...
Red Eye is not a serious news program.
In fact, they get paid to be provocative.
Just sayin'...



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I don't know about 'mentally ill', but 'confused' would be good.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Armchair Philosopher
 


Armchair, would you at least entertain the possibility, as I have, from seeing the videos over and over again, that the sheer weight of the structure above the impact points of the Towers, once weakened by the heat of the jet fuel, would result in the ultimate collapse?

Reason I surmise this is, simple: The first Tower hit, on a higher floor, was last to collapse.

I have no reason to believe that I could get into the minds of the terrorists.....BUT, my impression is that THEY thought that the momentum of the jets would somehow topple the tall buildings.

Anyone ever played 'Jenga'???

It does show that the bombing attempt in the basement of the WTC, in 1993 failed. AND, regardless of what you may think, these sand-worms still thought that hitting a building with a heavy jet would make the building fall over, thus accomplishing MORE devastation, which was likely their intent.

I hope I didn't offend anyone by using the term 'sand-worm'....I have a worse pejorative in my head, but it is not for ATS consumption.

Years of teaching people how to fly meant that I occasionally encountered peoples from various, shall we say, cultural venues?

Had the opportunity to meet some great folks.....but, some who could not understand how to use a screwdriver....well, they didn't make it.

Having said that, if you DO NOT have to be capable of a take-off and landing, you can still STEER a jet, if your intention is suicide/murder.

ANYONE who can use a computer can be taught to use the onboard systems on a modern jetliner....if you can drive a car, you can fly a modern jetliner!!! AS LONG as we aren't talking about take-offs and landings!!!



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
why do they call them "truthers"?

why not call them "liars" ?

as i ask myself these questions, i am baffled at the implications




For a while the banner up top said civility and decorum are required. Guess we don't need to follow those rules.

I don't cotton to being called a liar. For some odd reason, it ticks me off. Bad enough Fox News says I am mentally ill because I don't believe the rubbish that purportedly happened on 9/11. Now I'm called a liar. I guess I shouldn't let some idiot on a message board get me going but the name calling is quite absurd and unneeded.

Also, for the guy who stated the first bombings were in 1995, wrong, dude. It was 1993. I even pulled out my old Time mag, just to make sure. Unless someone came into my home and replaced it with a different copy with the wrong date, it says March of 1993. No big deal, just had to set that one right, even though I'm sure everyone here knew the right date.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLoony
 


Ya know what???

I have my opinions re: 9/11.....but I will NOT let Fox 'noise' accuse you of anything!!!!

Don't care if it's a nonsense term such as 'truther'....I, along with many, see 'Fox News' as the tool that they are....the 'tool' of Rupert Murdoch. NOW the owner of the WSJ....or, better known as the 'RSJ'.....the 'Rupert Street Journal',,,,,

And some wonder WHY newspapers are dying?

Two words....."Rupert Murdoch".......



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
FOX- the same network that years ago brought you a tv show on an alien invasion tailored to look as realistic as possible.

Makes ya think, dont it?



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 



Even when I first heard about 9/11 events and saw what the media presented on television I was skeptical and did research. From what I knew about the Bush Adminsitration already, I knew they were involved and for ANYONE to say we are mentally ill without dispute is himself mentally ill and ignorant



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by erniemink1
 


ernie....I will state categorically that I am no fan of the Bushies.

BUT, to imagine that in only 8 months these incompetent boobs could have orchestrated everything that is being alleged by those that think 9/11 was an "inside job" stretches credulity.

I MIGHT fall on the side of the 'let it happen' debate....given what we know now of the PDBs that were ignored. (Presidential Daily Briefing)s...

BECAUSE, by letting it 'happen', it gave incredible powers, for a while...unprecedented powers (since Nixon).

THIS as a means to an end....a virtual dictatorship, for eight years.

Of course, if they really wanted to cement their power, they would have pulled off ANOTHER 'false flag' attack, as some claim 9/11 to be....but, really....this tragedy that THEY did not see coming (or ignored, take your pick) fell into their laps!!! It was Dick Cheney's wet dream!!!!



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by k3456789
 


His name is 'Jon Stewart'.

But, yeah....he is a funny guy!!! And smart.....smart + funny equals.....MONEY!!!! and, success.....



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


I agree with Fox in this case, so I guess you all can be mad at me too. Funny how you all think you know more than the Army Corp of Engineers, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Los Alamos, and countless others who ran simulations through supercomputers.

No, you'd rather believe like Rosie O'Donnell that "Steel can't melt". HELLO! Steel is CREATED by melting. AND, it didn't need to melt all the way; just be comprimised by it's weakening.

There are so many other things to concern yourselves with like the manipulated economic "crisis".



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Yeah, Fox is fear-mongering. And then Obama says "worst crisis since the Great Depression" (it isn't) and "trillion dollar deficits for years to come". But Fox is the fear-monger.

Get over yourselves!



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


I'm curious. How can Bush be "an idiot" as you people like to refer to him, yet be smart enough to pull something like this off? You don't see the contradiction here?



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Nunny
 


Nunny....you confuse me, but that's good.

I'll 'star' you, if you want.

Yeah, scroll up....I do NOT think that Bush was capable of orchestrating 9/11.

Further, it seems that IF 9/11 just 'fell into their laps' they would have done a better job at getting at the perps, rather than using 9/11 as an 'excuse' to settle a score with Saddam Hussein.

Just my two dollars.....



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Yeah, scroll up....I do NOT think that Bush was capable of orchestrating 9/11.



Few truthers think he was. Rummy, Cheney, and many others but probably not bush. He's just a dumb drunk



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS


No, you'd rather believe like Rosie O'Donnell that "Steel can't melt". HELLO! Steel is CREATED by melting. AND, it didn't need to melt all the way; just be comprimised by it's weakening.



How does "compromised" steel lead to straight down collapses at near free-fall speed??? And it happened 3 times that day and yet it's never happened before or since to a steel-framed building.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
[

Armchair, would you at least entertain the possibility, as I have, from seeing the videos over and over again, that the sheer weight of the structure above the impact points of the Towers, once weakened by the heat of the jet fuel, would result in the ultimate collapse?




But would that cause a straight down collapse at free fall speed???. BTW - your theory does NOT explain the collapse of WTC-7 since it was not hit by a plane and was a block away from the twin towers!!! Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory on 911 always ignore Building 7.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76

Then a Chaplin:


"I've heard professionals say that nowhere ever in history did a steel building come down with fire alone," said the Chaplain in an interview with Newsday.

"It takes two or three weeks to demolish a building like that," he said. "But it was pulled down in a couple of hours. Was it 19 hijackers who brought it down, or was it a conspiracy?"


rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Guys, you all think that if someone makes it to a network show, then whatever he or she says deserves some merit as an argument. The world is full of idiots and the network doesn't care who is who.

Chaplin is a retard who never been in the highrise under construction. All steel beams are insulated against fire for an obvious reason that Chaplan can't see and won't be able to comprehend no matter what. He lies about having heard professionals making comments on the issue.

[edit on 2/16/2009 by stander]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45
 


Speed Limit....thanks for your response.

Sorry, but I just don't see what has been described, so often, as a 'free-fall'.

If there were no atmoshere on Earth, and you dropped an object (any object) and could measure its rate of fall it would be consistent with the rate of acceleration on Earth....about 10 metres/per second/per second. (about 39 feet/sec/sec). (ABOUT) because it will vary, ever so slightly, depending on latitude.

Of course, since we DO have an atmosphere, then various objects will be affected by the air, as they fall.

Example: (you can look this up...I once wished to sky-dive)....An average man, in freefall, while skydiving will reach various 'terminal velocities', depending on the surface area he exhibits. If you 'spread-eagle' (face down, arms and legs extended) you reach something like about 120 MPH (about 190 KPH). You can reduce your surface area (tuck in your limbs) and increase speed, extend limbs and re-slow, etc.

I've watched the videos of the Towers' collapse many times....I see an acceleration of the UPPER portions...then a steady 'pancaking' as the amount of weight above overcomes the structure beneath.

OH! I know what some will say....the lower levels ALWAYS held all that weight up above!!! Well, the lower levels weren't designed to have millions of tons of material DROPPED on them from above!!

Next argument....never seen it before....well, it WAS unprecedented.

Let me share, please, another observation.

One Tower was hit first, higher up than the second impact.

The Tower hit second, even though it was roughly twenty minutes later, collapsed first....why?

The weakend area of structure, as the fires burned, and after the impact damge took its toll, had more floors above, thus more weight, and gave way first.

Remember the large antenna on one of the Towers??? As you see the beginning of the collapse, you can see the antenna topple over....it does NOT fall straight down vertically. OTHER parts of both buildings would, as the collapse continued, act as projectiles....based on momentum imparted by the physics involved. THAT is what caused collateral damage to other nearby buildings....not JUST WTC7, hit most, but also (AND, where has anyone on ATS ever mentioned the Marriott Hotel???) other smaller, but less 'important', it would seem, surrounding structures.

To summarize....no, I've seen the videos....there was no 'free-fall'....it was consistent with how mass behaves, in a Gravitional field with an atmosphere.

Perhaps Hollywood CGI effects have set scientific understanding back --- just one opinion.....



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join