Are 9/11 Official Story Proponents Really the Unpatriotic?, page 7

privacy

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 37 times

reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 10:46 PM by rhunter

Originally posted by impressme

Why wouldnt a boxcutter survive the crash?

Because according to you two WTC buildings couldn’t.

Hey I know. They should have made WTC 1, 2, and 7 out of red bandanas.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 12:04 AM by impressme

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Comparing apples to oranges....yet again.......

Buildings subjected to heavy damage and uncontrolled fires are far different from a boxcutter.

You’re funny!

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 12:09 AM by impressme

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

debunk911myths.org...

This is a disinformation site that you have posted no wonder you believe in such nonsense

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 12:11 AM by GreenBicMan

reply to post by impressme

hmmmmm

swampfox, can you rebut this?

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 12:33 AM by impressme

reply to post by GreenBicMan

His whole post was nothing but hearsay nothing more, he said this, that one said that, and so on… The OS is base on hearsay … Oh the bulge

where is the proof it was not in the 911 commission report I wonder why …Oh nothing about WTC 7 was in the OS. only the proven lies that NIST conjured up.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 12:35 AM by GreenBicMan

reply to post by impressme

Thats what I was thinking as well.. although I hate to say stuff that I cant back up

I just think common sense should tell you that something was up that day...

Not a lot of people talk about it, but I think some of the most damning evidence is the false confession of the ABC producers wife saying she saw it all go down from her penthouse, when that was impossible (saw this on some online video)

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 02:04 AM by ts117

Little late in the thread, but I think it is really unfair to call someone unpatriotic simply because they share a different belief or perception of what happened. There are thousands of other words that can be used to describe someone who doesnt share your particular vision (my dog's name is Stupid), but unpatriotic is not one of them.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 02:14 AM by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by ts117
Little late in the thread, but I think it is really unfair to call someone unpatriotic simply because they share a different belief or perception of what happened. There are thousands of other words that can be used to describe someone who doesnt share your particular vision (my dog's name is Stupid), but unpatriotic is not one of them.

Yeah great then...Why don't you call into the Sean Hannity show, tell the call screener that, and you just see if they'll let you on the show. No chance.

That's what we have been putting up with for YEARS, just because we dare question the official story. Back at ya.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 02:42 AM by lavair1

I hate to say this but the original OP is ignorant as we learn everyday about things new and for example the Kennedey assassination I just saw recent proof that the secret service agents that were to be on back of limopusine were ordered to stand down. It was very apparent so this is some time afterwards of the event so I must say I hope anyone who has questions of any event that they follow them and ask them. We as humans learn alot on a daily basis.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 04:19 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You are kidding right? You mention WTC7 and yet do not know that FDNY was saying all afternoon that 7 was going to fall because of the damage it had and that they were not going to attempt to enter and fight the fires?

Please quote the page number for where this is stated in the NIST report on WTC 7.

Remember the NIST report? You know, that professional organisation of patriots who conducted an investigation for the government... show me where NIST states that WTC 7 was unstable and going to fall - all afternoon.

Thanks.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 04:19 AM by mike dangerously

I believe that those who support the official story do think of themselves as being patriots after all:"the government would never sell drugs to support terrorists." "we never dealt with Al-queda back in the 80's."Despite all the evidence to the contrary the government has indeed done both of these things and many more in the name of freedom.As for those debunkers from the military,if the entire thing is a lie then it means their GI Joe/Rambo power fantasies are total lies as well.

[edit on 043131p://2026 by mike dangerously]

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 06:02 AM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by impressme

Funny thing about things often labeled "disinformation". "Disinformation" appears to be synomous with "proves me wrong" in CT circles. It is after all so easy to declare any contrary information "disinformation", the devil is in the details though and that claim is seldom proven as little more than a spurious label slapped on for the convience of the person believing what they want.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 06:05 AM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by TrueAmerican

Ah, so acting just as atrocious *or more so* as you percieve those that you stand in opposition to, to act, is perfectly fine huh? Very telling that.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 07:49 AM by Oldtimer2

Funny was in a chat room and brought up this subject,I was called an idiot,,crazy and a few other explixitives problem being,no one would debate me with any facts,nobody wants to hear that their country is guilty of creating a ruse,why I'm afraid the USA is doomed,I remember watching it,I said"they demoed that building,no way was that a coincidense

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 08:12 AM by dodadoom

Instead of adding anything of importance to the investigation,
we attack each other! Brilliant!
Yes we are already in serious trouble! This apathy for the facts and
outright hostility to the people trying to uncover them, is partly the
reason why it has worked so well thus far.
The belief it could never happen here runs oil-well deep.
Thats right U, look back at my posts!
I've added more in one post than most have added this ENTIRE THREAD.
That alone may give me the right to rant like(almost)every one else here does.
That seems to be more credible

(once again with no facts, only heresay stories and personal conjecture)
And not one warning by the mods!

Next they'll tell me torture is a good thing and
the iran/contra affair never happened. Nor watergate.
Nor abu ghraib......
Oh, living in the land of publicly enabled denial.
Run by money lovin', power grubbin' people with no common sense.
I'm sure this is what our founding fathers had in mind.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by dodadoom]

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 08:24 AM by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Then you post a picture taken during the clean up and call it planting evidence...again classic....

When have you ever seen at any crash in history, men in expensive suits running around handling aircraft debris? He's either in a hurry to plant it or he's in a hurry to pick it up so it can't be identified.

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
if you could reference a picture of WTC 7 and all the structural damage

Swampy won't, so I will:

Here's a screenshot from this video showing the damage on the south side of WTC7:

And here's the roof:

You'll note that almost all of the damage is cosmetic and that the "gash" is only superficial. There was another building that got damaged almost identically to WTC7. Bankers Trust building:

Yep, still standing after 9/11.

Oh, and WTC7 was deliberately sabotaged. Fires were already started and burning before either tower collapsed. Here's a north side and south side view of the fires in WTC7 before either tower collapsed:

So, since WTC7 had fires deliberately set, then you can also conclude they would deliberately bring the building down as the video evidence suggests.

And if anyone thinks that one of these buildings below fell due to fires and minor, mostly cosmetic damage, then they need to take some physics courses:

Buildings do not fall down like that unless every single support column was severed at exactly the same time. Fires don't do that and never will.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 08:34 AM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by _BoneZ_

The following comment is fallacious and shows a lack of understanding of physics:

Buildings do not fall down like that unless every single support column was severed at exactly the same time. Fires don't do that and never will.

No building is as near invincible as that.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 08:49 AM by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
The following comment is fallacious and shows a lack of understanding of physics:

Buildings do not fall down like that unless every single support column was severed at exactly the same time. Fires don't do that and never will.

No building is as near invincible as that.

Buildings are designed to resist collapse, not assist collapse. If you honestly think fires can sever every single support column at exactly the same time, then you should start your own demo consulting firm and teach demo companies how to do that because they'd be rich beyond belief at all the money they would save in explosives and manpower to set those explosives.

If you think that setting fires in a building to make it collapse in a manner that only well-placed explosives have ever been able to achieve, then you are the one that shows the lack of understanding of physics.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 08:51 AM by dodadoom

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Just wanted to reiterate(repeat) this in case we missed it;

Buildings do not fall down like that unless every single support column was severed at exactly the same time. Fires don't do that and never will.

if anyone thinks that one of these buildings below fell due to fires and minor, mostly cosmetic damage, then they need to take some physics courses:

What's physics?

[edit on 31-5-2009 by dodadoom]

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 08:56 AM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Too bad you're dead wrong and your spew stinks more than a little....

Either way, buildings are big things made up of a bunch of smaller things fastened together, right? Right. That means at each point were a peice of material is fastened together is a point of possible fail. Now, different materials and different fastening techniques have differing abilities as to what it can hold up *weight*. Now, when a number of those points fail and the remaining points cannot structurally hold up all the weight the structure fails resulting in a collapse. You need not remove all the supports of a building or do it precisely to cause it to collapse I hate to tell you. Collapse IS something they shoot to avoid happening but we have not attained the ability to make next to invincible buildings.
The distinction and art of demotion is doing it in such a way that it does not happen chaoticly and damage or destroy it's surroundings while it's going down.

Otherwords, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. So kindly don't attempt to insult me.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]