Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The end of "911 Conpiracy", and the beginning of "911 Common Knowledge"

page: 3
139
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Mark_Amy
 


Umm..yeah.....

I don't get angry or frustrated with "truthers". Its more a feeling of sadness that they truly believe what they post. You might want to do some research on some of the items that King posted. They are not the evidence of a conspiracy. Over active imagination maybe....




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by octaviameister
 





Burning Kerosene does NOT melt steel, especially tempered steel. If burning kerosene melted or even weakened steel, then please explain to me how a jet engine operates? Jet engines burn kerosene for fuel


You might want to take a class in jet engine mechanics.

Better yet....read this, it explains how the majority of the air that goes into a jet intake is used for cooling purposes, since the temperatures during combustion exceed the melting point of the materials used in the engine.

www.century-of-flight.net...



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
King my amigo mad props, another awesome thread
and title
S+F.

WTC7 and the Pentagon footage (lack of) should be more than enough evidence for any sane human to realise that 911 was an inside job. When you take into account all the other 'coincidences' that King has mentioned it really does boggle the mind how anyone could believe the official story. It is almost beyond comprehension.

I hear you king, it's OS or NOT. Truth seekers need to stop debating the intricacies with each other and really come together to force the widespread exposure of the indisputable facts that prove the OS is BS.......

Keep up the good work, respect and peace out.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



"You might want to take a class in jet engine mechanics. Better yet....read this, it explains how the majority of the air that goes into a jet intake is used for cooling purposes, since the temperatures during combustion exceed the melting point of the materials used in the engine."

Well given those turbines shut down instantly, on impact ...

Q: What temperature does kerosene burn?
A : It burns at approx. 287.5 °C (575 °F) in open air.

wiki.answers.com...

Q: What is the meting point of steel?
A: It melts at about 1300 °C (2400 °F).

wiki.answers.com...

Somebody needs to go back to the drawing board, of deception and non-truths.


[edit on 19-7-2009 by seasoul]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Paaphi, if you're not an engineer you shouldn't use engineering prinicples to support your claim. Those engineering sources you claim say the collapse was legitimate never, I repeat never, gave a solid technical explanation for the collapse.

You come here and insult people complaining that they accept explanations without substantiation yet you are the biggest offender in that crime. There are so many points which strongly suggest that this crime was performed by insiders that it boggles the mind. The only explanation I can arrive at for your stance is fear or you have an alterior motive in sowing dissent and spreading confusion.

The problem with 911 that I see is one that I read about a short time ago. That is that most of those thinking people on the net are already open to a new investigation. It's those that are not net dwellers that have to be convinced. That is the next big job I think.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Well to start, JUST A FIRE, didn't bring down 3 buildings.
2 buildings were hit by BIG planes and caused structural damage.
So you have structural damage + fire = rubble.
Oh and please don't use the Empire State building as an argument...not the same thing


And can we have your rebuttle reguarding the collapse of WTC7, which was not hit by ANY plane? Just like the 9/11 Commision report, you have failed to revognise the most controversial collapse.
Something i would like to add is an interview with Larry Silverstein which im sure many of you have seen, where he says that the firefighters decided to 'pull' the building, a term commonly used by demolition teams, which means to demolish the building. www.youtube.com...
Controlled demolitions take days, even weeks to set up in order for them to be executed proporly. In this case, we are talking about a building whose support structure has apparently been so badly compromised, and the conditions inside the builiding so hazardous, that fire fighters are unsure wether or not they will be able to control the fires. Now please explain to me how a demolitions team would be able to, under these conditions, and within hours, rig the building with enough explosives to effectively bring it down at freefall speed, into its own footprint, something that normally takes days or weeks to do.
Alot of conjecture surrounds Larry's use of the word pull, and wether or not it refers to demolishing the building. I myself can see no other alternatives as to what he would be refering to when looking at the context it was used in, and the surrounding statements.

pull
v. pulled, pull·ing, pulls
v.tr.
1. To apply force to so as to cause or tend to cause motion toward the source of the force.

Now why would he use that word? What scenario occured that would make the use of that word relevant to the subsequent collapse of the building?
Are there any other defenitions of the word pull? Well yes there are, but as far as I can see only one that would have any relevance in his statement:

Phrasal Verbs:
pull down
1.To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
2. To reduce to a lower level.

defenitions were taken from www.thefreedictionary.com...

That to me seems to strongly suggest the use of the word pull in the interview with Larry Silverstein, meant to demolish the building. And still we are left with the question...how did demolition team rig the building so fast, and under such hazardous conditions?
There are two scenarios:
1) They were the best demolitions experts the world has ever seen, so good infact that they could enter burning building which fire fighters were apparently unable to control, rig it with enough explosives to ensure a successful controlled demolition, then exit the building, without beeing seen by the public, or any of the scores of cameras focusing on the building.
2) The explosive were already in the building.

Food for thought.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Splitta
 





And can we have your rebuttle reguarding the collapse of WTC7, which was not hit by ANY plane?


No, it was just clobbered by the collapse of WTC 1.


As for "pull it" that has been done to death on ATS. Check the older threads.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Let`s forget everything else about that fateful day and concentrate on 1 aspect, the supposed terrorists and their respective flights.....

1. Out of all four flights there are no Arabic passengers whatsoever.

1a. Ooops sorry, forgot to mention they are flying as aliases.

1b. But there are still no Arabic passengers whatsoever.

1c. So they must be flying under false names with American origins like Casey Jones.

1d. Excuse me r-tard I did mention there were no Arabic passengers on any of the flights, no matter what names they used.

1.e Ah ok, we`ll move on to fact number 2.

2. The terrorists were discovered via credit card trails whilst using their real identities whilst using forged passports with aliases.

2a. WTF? Let me get this straight... The F.B.I knew whom the terrorists where because credit card trails used for the plane tickets, on flights that carried no Arabic passengers whatsoever whilst they used American type names.

2b. Correct, welcome to the world of espionage.

2c. So when driving licenses, passports were found they had the true identities of the terrorists and not their aliases?.

2d. You catch on really quick.

2e. Obviously, can we move on now?.

3. Even though the people that died at Pentagon could never be recognised, the F.B.I. managed to identify them using D.N.A.

3.a Whoa!!!!, hold on, was it not the case of the bodies never identified at the towers, that due to the planes exploding it destroyed all the D.N.A. (apart from the terrorists), so why not the same explanation from the Pentagon?.

4. More prove of the suspected terrorists was found in their luggage and written in Arabic.... `How to pilot 737`s for dummies`.

3b. You didn`t answer my question?.

4a. Ah this will explain why Hani Hanjour improved from Stevie Wonder pilot skills to Tom Cruise, luckily for them they didn`t learn to fly in America, as this may have give the game away.

4b. Mmmm some learnt in Florida.

4c. What?, Arabic dudes learning to fly passenger Jets in America, dear oh dear.

4d. They didn`t learn to fly Jets, just single engine Cessna`s etc.

4e. Rotflmfao, you are making all this up aint ya?

5. Nope.

[edit on 16/07/2009 by Seventh]

[edit on 16/07/2009 by Seventh]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Swampfox, if you're disputing the story that King put forth and you think that there are points that need to be debated please do not do as most of the OS people do and just make disparaging remarks, tell us what those points are so we can consider them and respond. These generalized claims of inaccuracy serve no purpose in getting at the truth.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by baboo
 





There are so many points which strongly suggest that this crime was performed by insiders that it boggles the mind


Please post these points, because there are a lot of falsehoods and lies that are used as "points" by the "truther" movement. Things like 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon, no hijackers on the manifest, Obama and his gold ring, no building has ever collapsed from fire etc....



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Splitta
Originally posted by jfj123

Well to start, JUST A FIRE, didn't bring down 3 buildings.
2 buildings were hit by BIG planes and caused structural damage.
So you have structural damage + fire = rubble.
Oh and please don't use the Empire State building as an argument...not the same thing



And can we have your rebuttle reguarding the collapse of WTC7, which was not hit by ANY plane?

Well to start, I was responding to the fact that the poster said the claim was that the buildings fell from fire alone....all three buildings. Nobody has said that so I don't know where that comes from.


just like the 9/11 Commision report, you have failed to revognise the most controversial collapse.

Notice how I said that 2 of the 3 buildings collapsed due to plane impact and fire damage? Did I say all 3 buildings were hit by planes? NO I did not. Obviously I've recognized that fact....taa daa



Something i would like to add is an interview with Larry Silverstein which im sure many of you have seen, where he says that the firefighters decided to 'pull' the building, a term commonly used by demolition teams, which means to demolish the building.

This is another one of those things where you hear what you want to hear. Silverstein did not mean to blow up the buildings but to pull the crews back and let the building fall.



Controlled demolitions take days, even weeks to set up in order for them to be executed proporly.

Try months.



Now why would he use that word?

We can make that statement about a lot of words used by a lot of people. Your searching for a haystack in a haystack.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
You guys may as well give it up!
They will never admit it was an inside job.
If they admited that, they would have to
admit their hero bush baby knew about it.
Never gonna happen. nagada

Thats why we fail and how they won.
We are divided, lost and broke and apparently content with that.
There will never be a thorough investigation. Ever.
Too many cards would fall, leaving the sheep leaderless
and even more lost. If thats possible.
I'm still waiting for a new JFK investigation!

Get real. It will all continue just as long as we all let it.

The ptb will cater to the rich & powerfull and always will.
Enjoy whats left, for 'they' have already won. Duh.....

For some reason, its viewed as patriotic by some to admire the
very ones who really dont give a rats ass about them anyway.


[edit on 19-7-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

posted by Mark_Amy
Do you know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see a thread started by the debunkers called "Why the official story is true!" and I think only debunkers should be allowed to post in it. Although I don't believe the official story is true, I'm not that arrogant to have closed my mind to any other ideas than my own, however in opposition to my ideas they may be.

All we see here day after day is, "I'm right and you're wrong and you must be an idiot if you can't see that!" It just goes on and on and back and forth and gets nowhere.

I'd really like to read and follow a serious thread contributed to by people who believe that the official story is true because maybe we are missing something! Maybe they are seeing something, which we have closed our minds to and have become blind to. Maybe given the opportunity to exchange their ideas together, without having to go on the offense or defense, they may produce ideas that make us think, "You know, I never really thought about it that way before!"

After all, isn't that the kind of open-mindedness we ask of them?


That is not a bad idea; but the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY defenders would never cooperate in such a thread. They need Truthers to feed upon. They need Truther ideas to attack and to build their strawman arguments upon. How could they fill their "Why the official story is true!" thread with strawman arguments and red herrings if there were no Truthers allowed in the thread?

The 9-11 pseudoskeptics have no open-mindedness to fill a "Why the official story is true!" thread with. They have only faith in their government god. It is Truthers who go out on their own time and on their own dollars to seek out eyewitnesses and additional evidence and to film areas near the crime scenes.

Several JREF pseudoskeptics bragged that they would journey to Arlington on their own time and their own dollars and seek out official story eyewitnesses and what did they come up with?

ZILCH. Nothing. ZERO. Not one eyewitness to support their fairy tale.

I guess their hearts were not in it.

What would the debunkers fill their "Why the official story is true!" thread with? They don't research. They don't dig. They don't come up with confident well-researched alternatives.

They troll. They mock and ignore posts and entire threads which they cannot possibly counter-debate. They pretend that certain counter-official-story evidence does not exist. They deny deny deny. The debunkers rely on pure faith and expect others to follow suit.

Nah. I don't expect any kind of "Why the official story is true!" thread from those guys, anymore than I would expect the debunkers to travel to the Pentagon area to find and video-interview eyewitnesses to the official south flight path and the light pole through the windshield.

They must instinctively know that no such eyewitnesses actually exist.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
King my amigo mad props, another awesome thread
and title
S+F.

WTC7 and the Pentagon footage (lack of) should be more than enough evidence for any sane human to realise that 911 was an inside job. When you take into account all the other 'coincidences' that King has mentioned it really does boggle the mind how anyone could believe the official story. It is almost beyond comprehension.

I hear you king, it's OS or NOT. Truth seekers need to stop debating the intricacies with each other and really come together to force the widespread exposure of the indisputable facts that prove the OS is BS.......

Keep up the good work, respect and peace out.


Great...now its conclusive that Im "insane" if I dont believe in the 911 conspiracy... I think I know where this sort of mentality leads us. Maybe a "cleansing" of the "insane" (i.e. people who dont believe as you) is in order? Y/N? You truthers are becoming what you fight.


[edit on 19-7-2009 by Remixtup]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I have a brain, so no way I buy the official story, a true make-believe story.

Your post is very thorough in pointing out the conincidences/inconsistencies so I won't re-tell those. I will just tell about my 911 experience, and what it says about some Americans.

I was in 9th grade. Being 14, I believed the story. I believed there were terrorists living in caves across the world plotting ways to kill me and fellow Americans. I thought the color coded defense alarms were good. I thought Bush was doing such a great job. I thought the war in Iraq was good.

I was 21 when I even considered 911 may not be what I thought. I heard a news anchor say something about the 911 conspiracies, I don't remember in what context. I then began searching online and found all of the information you listed in detail. Now, I'm different, I question everything, and don't believe most of what the government and its entities say. I've become what I used to consider insane, a conspiracy theorist.

I was 14. I'm sure most kids 5-16ish believed the story like I did, maybe more so. I wonder why the adults bought the story so easily, I was a kid, what's their excuse? And, I wonder how many people grew up and still believe the story. The worst part is the damage is done, and still being done overseas.

If 911 loses it's value as a tool for public support of imperial agenda, will there be another terrorist attack?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

posted by BenIndaSun
I have a brain, so no way I buy the official story, a true make-believe story.

Your post is very thorough in pointing out the conincidences/inconsistencies so I won't re-tell those. I will just tell about my 911 experience, and what it says about some Americans.

I was in 9th grade. Being 14, I believed the story. I believed there were terrorists living in caves across the world plotting ways to kill me and fellow Americans. I thought the color coded defense alarms were good. I thought Bush was doing such a great job. I thought the war in Iraq was good.

I was 21 when I even considered 911 may not be what I thought. I heard a news anchor say something about the 911 conspiracies, I don't remember in what context. I then began searching online and found all of the information you listed in detail. Now, I'm different, I question everything, and don't believe most of what the government and its entities say. I've become what I used to consider insane, a conspiracy theorist.

I was 14. I'm sure most kids 5-16ish believed the story like I did, maybe more so. I wonder why the adults bought the story so easily, I was a kid, what's their excuse? And, I wonder how many people grew up and still believe the story. The worst part is the damage is done, and still being done overseas.

If 911 loses it's value as a tool for public support of imperial agenda, will there be another terrorist attack?



Congratulations.

You decided to cease being a sheeple and started to think for yourself.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
... of course the Official Story is crap , but- haven't we all expected that ? Didn't our grandparents say things like ' don't believe everything you read...' didn't theirs ?

There is one rationale that could explain how the lies ( or some of them ) might NOT point to complicancy or outright guilt :

On the morning of 911, I got to a TV ( I haven't watched regularly in decades ) just in time to see the second building fall. My knee-jerk reaction and comment was ' damn , I would hate to be THAT guy ' !

I was asked who I meant and I said, ' the guy who had to bring those buildings down to keep them from falling all over Manhatten '.

I don't know that any of this could be applied to Washington or Shanksville , but- it would make no sense to not have a contingency for these huge buildings- and to keep it very very secret both before and after. This is not any sort of concrete theory on my part... just something to chew on.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Is it merely a coincidence that a banker for the nazi's was a bush?
Why did we not invade saudi arabia if the supposed hijackers
came from there?
Why iraq and not afganystan were bin ladin ACTUALLY WAS?
Why did we give him a headstart? Who is Tim Osman?
Would the cia ever do something bad?
Was it all really just about the no-bid (very lucrative) contracts?
Why were the bin ladins flown OUT of the country on that day?
Did cheneys company directly profit from the war?
Wasnt cheny the one pushing for it?
Were we all duped and still are?
Is obama doing basically the same things bush did, only worse?
Yap! Lotzza unanswered questions my friends.
Will the answers ever come out? Probably over their dead bodies.
Land of the greed, home of the fraid.
Enjoy what you have(left)and appreciate your peeps.
(before they take it all away and call it neccesary)



[edit on 19-7-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


No Arabs on plane?

Here is passenger list/seating chart published by Boston Globe
on Thursday September 13




Notice the "Arab" names and locations which correspond with what
Flight attendents Betty Ong And Amy Sweeney reported before the crash



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Well to start, JUST A FIRE, didn't bring down 3 buildings.
2 buildings were hit by BIG planes and caused structural damage.
So you have structural damage + fire = rubble.

Yes, 2 buildings that were purposely over-built and designed to withstand those impacts. Take the planes out of the equation for a second and add in a controlled demo team. Say that team completely blows up 4 or 5 floors with explosives. Do you think the towers would still fall?

I already know your answer would be "yes" and that would be false. The towers would not collapse from a demo team completely blowing up 4 or 5 floors up top, let alone a plane impact partially damaging 4 or 5 floors of one side of each tower. Demo teams set explosives from top to bottom in most buildings like this one:


Google Video Link



See the flashes going up, down and around the building? If you go to my first post in this thread, I link to one of my other posts that quote first responders seeing the same exact flashes with popping/exploding noises at the towers on 9/11.

The towers absolutely would not have fallen from a plane impact and only partially damaging one side when a demo team still couldn't bring those towers down by blowing up the entire floors in that area. The witness testimony to the flashes and explosions adds more credibility to the fact that the WTC was brought down with explosives.



Originally posted by jfj123
Oh and please don't use the Empire State building as an argument...not the same thing

I'm trying to understand how it's not the same thing. Plane hits building, causes fire and structural damage. Sounds the same to me. The Empire State building is smaller and the plane was smaller, but it is still a steel-structured highrise that had fires for 2 or 3 hours and had structural damage. Just because it didn't collapse doesn't mean it's not that same thing. Had the ESB been laced with explosives from top to bottom, it would've looked very similar to the WTC.





new topics

top topics



 
139
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join