Are 9/11 Official Story Proponents Really the Unpatriotic?, page 8

privacy

Pages: << 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 37 times

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 09:11 AM by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
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.

The only thing you left out is that when a number of those points fail, the building will collapse in the direction of the failure. If the building falls straight down, then all supports were severed at exactly the same time, period.

Further, please show in the photos of WTC7 that I posted above, one or more support columns that were damaged.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Otherwords, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

I've been researching 9/11 and controlled demolition for many years, but if you would like a better source how about this:

Mark Loizeaux, CEO and son of the owner of Controlled Demolition, Inc. was quoted as saying:

"Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire-produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle."

Source:
Newscientist.com

Article: Baltimore blasters
* 24 July 2004
* Liz Else
* Magazine issue 2457

On-line reading requires a subscription.

"Requires a miracle." It's a "miracle" because steel-structured buildings cannot and have never fallen globally and completely due to fires.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 09:13 AM by MEAT10AF

reply to post by TrueAmerican

Just want to chime in with my opinion here:

I don’t think it’s the OP’s right or the right of any other person to define a person as “unpatriotic” based purely on what they think happened that day. The 9/11 Truthers are searching to bring about justice and improvement to America by pursuing those who were in power at the time. The official story believers seek to bring justice and improvement to America by pursuing Bin Laden.

Note that both camps seek to do something for the good of America. You know what’s unpatriotic? Only doing things with the intent to hurt your country are truly unpatriotic, my friend. Whether you’re a Truther or an official story believer, if you pursue your goals for the betterment of America, then you are by all means a patriot. Each camp, regardless of who’s got the story right, honestly believes that it is doing something good for America.

Now, in further response to the OP, I believe that this mentality where you speak for the 9/11 victims by saying those who believe the official story “don’t care” is downright offensive. First of all, the victims of 9/11 who died are just that: dead. They likely knew less about what was happening to them than we did. Also, according to your mentality, even the families of victims that believe the official story “don’t care”. The people who watched their friends and families perish but believe the official story simply “don’t care”. I bet you anything they did then and still do now.

You know, to many people, Faux News is the voice of America. They are ignorant of the “alternative” perspectives. Is this excusable? Maybe. The point I make here is that, if you don’t know better, then the official story is pretty much set in stone. Does this mean you “don’t care”? Absolutely not. What this means is that you don’t know. It’s really as simple as that.

Now, OP, it seems that you feel rather jaded by the majority (the official story believers). But, the further you distance yourself from them, the more division occurs. I’ll be honest, if I were an official story believer and saw myself constantly labeled as part of the “sheeple” by the truthers, then you could forget it right there. I could care less what you had to say. Labeling people is not how you get their support, and not getting support is not how you make something known to the majority.

Here’s an idea for the truthers: instead of constantly defining yourself as separate from the majority, just consider yourselves Americans that happen to deny the official story. Chances are that, given time, others will listen. Stop labeling the masses as “sheeple” and the like. I wouldn’t define myself as a “Truther” or anything similar. I would define myself as a downright patriotic American trying to get other patriots to see things from my perspective.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 09:19 AM by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
You need not remove all the supports of a building or do it precisely to cause it to collapse I hate to tell you. Otherwords, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

Seems that you are the one who has absolutely no clue what you're talking about. The CEO of CDI just proved your underlined statement wrong when he said "by precisely placed explosives".

Still wanna continue to make yourself look foolish? Be my guest.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 09:22 AM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by _BoneZ_

The only thing you left out is that when a number of those points fail, the building will collapse in the direction of the failure. If the building falls straight down, then all supports were severed at exactly the same time, period.

Further, please show in the photos of WTC7 that I posted above, one or more support columns that were damaged.

And if the point of fail is internal. You can guess the rest. Or can you? Buildings are generally designed also with the contingency in mind of if the building fails and collapses they want it to collapse inward and cause as little collateral damage as possible. Though it should be noted that collateral damage due to structural failure cannot be completely avoided.

And all you have proven with your pictures is:
1) It was on fire at some point.
2) It collapsed, that is what your little *as in very short* has shown.

And the "sources" you provide.... Well, firstly, NewScientist does not require a subscription as I browse their website fairly often, I happen to love their articles. And secondly, kinda convient your other "source" also has this attribute that you claim NewScientist has *falsely I might add*........

And I do apologise for my smarminess but you do "reap" what you "sow". Thus my points earlier.

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

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 09:25 AM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Ah yes. Accept a "source" that is uncited beyond your assurance that it exists and is from whom you attribute it to. Hardly..... Especially in light of your eagerness to insult those that disagree. There is something about those who don't rely on just facts and instead rely on "just trust me" and insults in an attempt to kow others into agreeing.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 09:27 AM by dodadoom

reply to post by MEAT10AF

Well said! Thanks for that!
We all care about our country obviously, we all just have
different ideas of how to go about things.
We claim to be(patriotic) but support the status quo which obviously is
still trying to take that very right away.
I agree maybe unpatriotic is not the right word to use.
Maybe just mentally obese would be closer to the truth.
Thinkin' is hard work!

I'm purty sure its not just our bodies that are out of shape.....

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 09:31 AM by brad james

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

LOL

Yeah, ones that are still alive that apparently took over the planes.

Let me ask you this..,

If you saw your picture and name implicated in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and you are obviously not involved, how would you be lead to believe this happened?

You think cave dwellers pulled this off?

I do believe there are radicals, yes, totally.

I do believe there are bad people, yes.

I DO NOT BELIEVE, AND NEVER WILL THAT A FEW DUMBASSES WITH BOXCUTTERS COULD TAKE OVER A PLANE

Lets get real.

We know 7 of the hijackers were still alive days after 9/11. But how many of them are still alive today?

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 10:00 AM by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Well, firstly, NewScientist does not require a subscription as I browse their website fairly often

Had you taken a few seconds to search for the article I was referring to, you would see this on the NewScientist website:

This is a preview of the full article. New Scientist Full Access is available free to magazine subscribers. Subscribers login now.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now.

And here's the direct link:
www.newscientist.com...

Now, do you still want to continue to be proven wrong, or are you done yet?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And all you have proven with your pictures is:
1) It was on fire at some point.

Great research skills you have there. You can clearly see the north tower standing and no massive dust cloud floating around which means the south tower is still standing also. Which also means the fires in WTC7 were not started from the collapses of the towers like some suggest and therefore were likely deliberately set so that it could be claimed that the building fell due to fire and damage, just as you were brainwashed to believe and still believe.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And I do apologise for my smarminess

No need to apologize. You are the epitome of Mr. Negativity. You haven't posted a single post in this 9/11 forum that has a residue of positivity in it since I've been here at ATS. So, I'm used to it coming from you.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 10:00 AM by sayiamu

I LOVE the concept and execution of this OP ESPECIALLY for the use of the word unpatriotic.

Look at the response! Man ...you talk about throwing a rock at a hive...

"I love mah country..and don't you tell me I don't! Dem terrorists brought down all dem buildings... the government report said so..."

man ...there are NO borders when it comes to tptb.. they could care less ..but they know that they can control through "patriotism" ..and this OP is proof puddin'....

Its a very sad but pervasive state that most people are more want to be called a patriot than a humanitarian..... and tptb are neither ... just rich off of herd mentality ...

and, of course, we regress to debating the physics of 911 .. and some people want to hold on to a dream ... (or are paid to)

VIVA LA IGNORANCE MOVEMENT!

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 10:03 AM by brad james

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by _BoneZ_

Ah yes. Accept a "source" that is uncited beyond your assurance that it exists and is from whom you attribute it to. Hardly..... Especially in light of your eagerness to insult those that disagree. There is something about those who don't rely on just facts and instead rely on "just trust me" and insults in an attempt to kow others into agreeing.

I find it frustrating that there ares o many like you who refuse to look at the facts.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 10:49 AM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Moving right along. Continued assaults and pointless posturing aside.

Yes, you were correct about that one article in New Scientist. Though you assuming that proves the rest of your tripe correct is showing. That being said, back to the original point I was attempting to make about this silly childish attack of a thread. I am willing to bet you have me classified as a "sheeple" because I dare to disagree with those you are parrotting *also indicative of a flawed investagory method*. When that is anything but the truth. I do there are points on which Bush and Co *aka those in power at the time* must answer for. I do not agree the collapses were CD or that they were directly involved, and this is not because I simply accept the "official story"
I hate to inform you *though if the tenacity in which you hold your other thoughts I doubt you will believe me*. I do question any number of things, for example, "Why was the warnings *from within and without* that we were about to be attacked aparently completely ignored?", "Why was the planes allowed to veer drasticly of course without any alarm being raised, in supposedly one of the most watched air corridors in the US?" *training exercise does not cut it*, "Why the smoke screen as to the buildings themselves?", "Why has Osama Bin Laden not been captured by now or at least 'eliminated'?", "Why does the government seem to via some tangent of reverse psychology encourage your movement?", and the list does go on. Which go against any number of the accusations you attempt to lump me into for the safety of your own self rightous glorification.
And your analysis of my activities on this site means about jack for the reasons above as well..... But what do I know, I am just an ignorant, unpatriotic, stupid, sheeple. I am not the one creating and supporting threads that call "truthers" *simply a title to refer to a group of like mind, call it a personal term* names. In fact I would denounce such activity.

Otherwords if all you can do is insult in a rather poor attempt to make a point, your point is lacking in something.

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

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 11:07 AM by dodadoom

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

I do question any number of things, for example, "Why was the warnings *from within and without* that we were about to be attacked aparently completely ignored?", "Why was the planes allowed to veer drasticly of course without any alarm being raised, in supposedly one of the most watched air corridors in the US?" *training exercise does not cut it*, "Why the smoke screen as to the buildings themselves?", "Why has Osama Bin Laden not been captured by now or at least 'eliminated'?", "Why does the government seem to via some tangent of reverse psychology encourage your movement?", and the list does go on.

Wow, good job asking those excellent(and unanswered)questions!

Star for that! (and only that)
I think you are starting to see the light! Congrats 2 U!
Carefull when you pull one string though,
the whole blanket will start to come unraveled if you don't quit it!

(I don't think you are a sheeple btw)

[edit on 31-5-2009 by dodadoom]

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 11:08 AM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by dodadoom

Please check your condescention at the door.

But, thank you, for that rather limited compliment.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 11:09 AM by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I am willing to bet you have me classified as a "sheeple" because I dare to disagree

No, I just find you very close-minded, heavily biased, and extremely abrasive. Everyone has their own opinions about different things. Everyone has different education levels and different comprehension levels of science and physics. Some people are more open-minded than others. I won't lump you into any catagory. If you can't see the facts for what they are, then that's your bad, not mine.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I do not agree the collapses were CD or that they were directly involved, and this is not because I simply accept the "official story"

Well that is certainly your opinion. However, I will believe what my research and my own eyes tell me, along with hundreds of architects, engineers, scientists, physicists and a few demolition experts that have spoken out over anything you or any other debunker has to say.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by _BoneZ_]

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 11:16 AM by dodadoom

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Please check your condescention at the door.

Didn't bring any in with me, sorry. Against the rules.
I'm giving you a compliment, please take it as one.
It sometimes happens when I'm lied too and told I'm unpatriotic.
Sorry if it came across that way. None intended.
And I'll prove it to you. Keep your eyes open and check your public profile.....you have tenacity and drive to seek things out.
I respect that and consider you a strong ATS friend!
Your very welcome also! I try to be civil even though its hard
when it seems we just enjoy being delusionally nationalistic on purpose.
And thanks for noting the childish behavior I mentioned earlier, as
well as the posturing that is used by many to cover their ineptitude.
Apology's to all for my snarkyness.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by dodadoom]

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 11:17 AM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by _BoneZ_

You find ME abrasive??? Might want to swing that analytical microscope in the opposite direction. I admit that I can be abrasive but that is only a result of reaction, which is not justifiable by any means but it is understandable. From square one in this thread *I don't bother to look at your past posts* practically all of the posts posted by "truthers" *again a personal term not meant for insult* have been a baseless attack on anyone who disagrees with you.

I can live with agreeable disagreement without insulting the person with whom I disagree with. I am seeing no such ability from you.

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

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 11:20 AM by Neo_Serf

Anyone who can watch WTC7 implode into its footprint like so many Las Vagas casinos and not audibly or inaudibly go 'hmmmmmmm....' is lost and committed to false reality. These people simply dont want to realize whats happening, and therefor really arent reachable with facts or logic.

'Facts? pffft. Facts can be used to prove anything thats even remotely true.' - Homer Simpson

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 11:22 AM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by dodadoom

I never told you that you were those things. And nor would I. I don't understand people can justify doing it to others because someone else did it to them..............
I do believe you are misguided, I also believe you are falling in with a crowd and wantonly misintrepretating facts and "evidence" to support an idea. But I will not call you names for it. That is my personal view *aka opinions* and by NO MEANS is it an absolute perfect judgement.

And besides...

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole word blind" -Gandhi

Bad behavior does not excuse more bad behavior. And yes I am guilty of it as well in a reactionary capacity, I never claimed I was perfect.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 11:23 AM by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I can live with agreeable disagreement without insulting the person with whom I disagree with. I am seeing no such ability from you.

Well maybe that's why you can't see how 3 WTC buildings were brought down with explosives, but I personally haven't insulted you. And if you think you're being insulted by anyone, there's this button that says "Report" so that it can be brought to the mods' attention.

reply posted on 31-5-2009 @ 11:27 AM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Oh yes you sure as tooting have. Repeatedly. And I am sorry but that last part of the statement has been logical fallacy, you can insult me and them not punish you for it or even mark it off as an insult, doesn't mean there wasn't an insult to be had. Especially considering what this thread entails *a baseless generalized attack if ever there was one* has been allowed to exist and one of the only people punished at all in this thread was punished *points detracted in a warning, then post banned* for getting a little too voicy in his objection to this thread. All the while being called, for example, the vulgar word for a females sexual organs and etc by those that all they got was censure.

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