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.

 

9 11 The Whole World Knows Even The French Get It ( 1) (9/11 TRUTH SERIES)

page: 5
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomfrusso
reply to post by vehemes terra eternus
 


To Manufacture a war? Sorry, I don't buy that. To spend billions and cost more lives?

What is there to gain by those who started it?

Sorry, it does not add up. Who benefits? To start a war just to start a war?


Good Question

The truth is in that direction...




posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by tomfrusso
reply to post by vehemes terra eternus
 


To Manufacture a war? Sorry, I don't buy that. To spend billions and cost more lives?

What is there to gain by those who started it?

Sorry, it does not add up. Who benefits? To start a war just to start a war?


Good Question

The truth is in that direction...







well ... who benefits ? everyone who sell war equipament ... thats obvious ... they doesnt want a world in peace ...



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 





Good Question

The truth is in that direction...



I surmise the wars were started because of a number of issues that included the motivation of the Bush family to settle a vendetta due to the Saddam Hussein attempted assassination of Bush senior, the neocon wish to destroy Iraq on behalf of Israel, the threat of Saddam in trading Iraqi oil in the Euro bourse in opposed to the dollar, the new politico-military philosophy of 'full spectrum dominance' and the desire to control the Asian addiction to oil.

Harold Pinter mentioned the term 'full spectrum dominance' in his 2005 Nobel Prize acceptance speech:




"I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources."


The motivation for the Afghan war is far more complex and is worth recognising that the US administration under Bush had no problems in securing alliances with the Taliban. Superficially, the US told the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden or else.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I just wanted to jump in to say that the French are much more than the weasels and cowards portrayed by the mainstream media in America. When the French, under Jacques Chirac refused to join the invasion of Iraq (as did Canada during the Chretien government) Americans had a pouty boy tantrum, going so far as to show those French bastards just how gutless they are by renaming "French fries", "Freedom (sic) fries".

This is the level of public debate in America, where staying infantile is not only a cherished right but a cherished asperation for many.

France is beautiful, (that is an understatement) and the French people are awesome and no more so than when they are being French to the core. But France also has it's right wingers who would be more than happy to hand the 9/11 truth movement shovels to dig their own graves before shooting them.

When you think of France, remember where the statue of Liberty came from. What other country makes such big hearted gestures? Maybe, when it is at its best . . . America?

Vivre la France!!



[edit on 2-8-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by patientobserver

Ok lets just keep it simple, can you just tell me about building #7?
what caused it to collapse?


Aren't you putting the cart before the horse, Patientobserver?

Ok, follow me here... WHY was *any* kind of pre-planned destruction of WTC7 necessary?

What could have possibly been the benefit? It wasn't a deal where the American public wouldn't have been on-board for retaliation if only 4 planes were hijacked and three smashed into targets killing thousands... but WTC7 didn't fall so...no war, no retaliation.

What would the "explosive planters" have done if WTC 1 never fell on to WTC 7 leaving a clever, nay GODLIKE, alibi. No one could have predicted such chaos.

So just exactly what was the reward for the destruction of WTC7 that would warrant the risk?

Further, why was the FDNY saying all afternoon on 9/11/2001 that WTC 7 was severely compromised and likely to collapse? So much so the formed a collapse zone around the area. Are you willing to implicate the FDNY with any controlled demolition theories?

If we can get past these problems , perhaps I would entertain the minutia of 2001....again.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by prepare4it777
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


72,748 signatures. Get your facts straight


Sorry, I have my facts straight...straight from the horses mouth so to speak



No MORE than 26,003 qualified signatures (likely less)

24,664 Invalid signatures. ( No witness, date , validitity AT ALL)

Still, combined it is about 20,000 short of your wishful number.

Ironically, looking at the total population of NYC and the amount of valid signatures it comes out to about .01 % of the residents in New York..Hmmmm

THAT FITS MY PREMISE that Only .01% of the population are active truthers.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by patientobserver
reply to post by john124
 


Right those questions have been answered many times, and each time theyre answered it doesnt come out in your favor.

Ok lets just keep it simple, can you just tell me about building #7?
what caused it to collapse?


In my favour? There you go assuming I make my mind up and hope the evidence fits (someday). That's your idea of reality, not mine. I go with the facts and evidence, which has been explained sufficiently many years ago. I have no preference apart from the truth. It's ironic how you call yourselves the "truthers" - that name could not be any further from the truth.

I don't need to go into detail about any of those points as I have better things to do. I accept the evidence, I don't keep repeating questions that have already been answered, and I move on with life.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by john124]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperViking
Uh, mismanagement of the war in Iraq actually helped fuel the crisis that we're in now...so no, they didn't benefit. Unless you're saying they could plan a supersecret conspiracy to blow up the WTC and have no whistleblowers but couldn't even manage an invasion correctly.


Haha!! Now that's a question that the truthers cannot answer.... they bombard rational folk with the same already answered questions, yet cannot provide a reasonable & rational argument to counter this.

They usually proceed to make up their story or beliefs as they go along and whenever somebody challenges their beliefs.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Left leaning liberial here who doesn't put much belief in to CTs.

How ever anyone with a laymans understanding of metallurgy knows that molten steel indicates that more than jet fuel and office furniture were burning that day.

Jet fuel burns @ 280 C in an open flame
Steel melts @ 1500 C

thats a rather large leap is it not? As in you need 5 times the heat you get from jet fuel to melt them steel beams.

you can't get around that friends. I have no dog in this fight as i don't know who melted the steel, but i do know they used more than jet fuel to do it.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by Militant1]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Militant1
Left leaning liberial here who doesn't put much belief in to CTs.

How ever anyone with a laymans understanding of metallurgy knows that molten steel indicates that more than jet fuel and office furniture were burning that day.

Jet fuel burns @ 280 C in an open flame
Steel melts @ 1500 C

thats a rather large leap is it not? As in you need 5 times the heat you get from jet fuel to melt them steel beams.

you can't get around that friends. I have no dog in this fight as i don't know who melted the steel, but i do know they used more than jet fuel to do it.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by Militant1]


Have you heard of the equation: Pv=nRT.

Therefore "Pressure" & "volume" are proportional to "Temperature".

Therefore extreme pressure = very high temperatures.

It really is as simple as that..... and compotent engineers and physicists have put the numbers in and it's given values that are required to turn steel molten.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
are you saying that the steel that held up the WTC went molten from the wieght of the rubble of the WTC? I don't care about who done it just how because it doesn't fit. At the very least i feel a full scale investigation is in line. Especialy if steel used in skyscrappers will go motlen under their wieght, i would say thats a something alone that merits intense research.

As far as the CTs go, untill its explained in full detail and recreated in at least a model, then its going to look like someones covering up something. Its hard to not be concerned when the best the 911 comission could come up with was highly questionable. So instead of calling the "Truthers" nut jobs, how about getting some research going to try and better define what happend that day. Come on guys if there is no conspiracy to 911 don't we atleast need to know the reasons why the towers fell? Get the brainacks at mit on it, launch a full scale engineering test study. Lets get some of the best and the brightest minds working on it, after all aren't other skyscrappers also in danger of "melting" their own steel beams?

Seeems to me that the US goverment should conduct an ongoing intensive investigation... that is unless they all ready know .

The overall problem with pressure creating molten steel is that you would have to trap said steel between two meduims of higher strength to exert enough pressure. otherwise the steel would just be crushed into the ground. Long before it would melt steel will twist,shear,flatten or bend. thats not what i saw them pulling out of the rubble. I saw intact beams with melted ends. What im saying is that if your correct then doesn't that demand more research?

forget the who i just want to know how.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by Militant1]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Militant1
are you saying that the steel that held up the WTC went molten from the wieght of the rubble of the WTC? I don't care about who done it just how because it doesn't fit. At the very least i feel a full scale investigation is in line. Especialy if steel used in skyscrappers will go motlen under their wieght, i would say thats a something alone that merits intense research.

As far as the CTs go, untill its explained in full detail and recreated in at least a model, then its going to look like someones covering up something. Its hard to not be concerned when the best the 911 comission could come up with was highly questionable. So instead of calling the "Truthers" nut jobs, how about getting some research going to try and better define what happend that day. Come on guys if there is no conspiracy to 911 don't we atleast need to know the reasons why the towers fell? Get the brainacks at mit on it, launch a full scale engineering test study. Lets get some of the best and the brightest minds working on it, after all aren't other skyscrappers also in danger of "melting" their own steel beams?

Seeems to me that the US goverment should conduct an ongoing intensive investigation... that is unless they all ready know .


There has been simulations by various academics that have already demonstrated that the collapsing tower caused such a high pressure to melt the steel.

Remember that the steel beams didn't collapse on their own, a plane struck the building. This led to weakening the steel structure through jet-fuel burning, and this led to the top of the tower collapsing. And so the whole tower fell downwards due to gravity from the extreme force from above. And extreme force gives extreme pressure, which melted the steel beams during the towers collapsing.

I doubt anybody could design a sky-scraper that can withstand those kinds of pressures and temperatures during a partial collapse in the top half. Maybe not impossible, but highly improbable as the forces are so immense that no material could withstand it. And the weight of any building is limited due to feasibility and costs, and would most likely have to be very heavy in order to provide the bulk to withstand an equal and opposite reactive force from above due to gravity, even if we were to use the strongest materials available. Although I hope somebody can prove me wrong about that, and show me some materials that can withstand these high temps & pressures.


[edit on 3-8-2009 by john124]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Steel doesn't melt when over stressed it snaps, bends, twist, ect. in order for it to melt it would have to be trapped between two meduims stronger than itself. The pressure would have been enough to melt steel except before that happend the steel would have reached its stress point and failed, there by releasing the said pressure. Of note you might want to link those studies if you can, and its also noteworthy that this melting steel wasn't noticed in any other buildings that collasped, before 9/11.

I'm not trying to win the truthers argument for them, i am an engineer and niether me nor my coworkers have been able to figure out how those towers collasped the way they did. Its not just us but many in the field dare not speak the truth, theres alot more to this than we know. I am sorry to say the overall mechanics is wrong. Its doesn't work on paper and computer models will not recreate it as it happend.

Your pressure formula is used primarly with gases and liquids in relation to refrigeration, while the same will hold true with solids, assuming that said solid were to be contained by something that could contain that kind of pressure. When your talking about steel thats all but imposible.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
I go with the facts and evidence, which has been explained sufficiently many years ago.


You are supporting "facts" that are contradictory to observable science.


Originally posted by john124
I accept the evidence


You should not accept evidence...you should analyze it.

Instead of believing...use critical thinking and understand.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 





When the French, under Jacques Chirac refused to join the invasion of Iraq (as did Canada during the Chretien government)


Now, shall we discuss how certain parts of the French government were involved in forging documents and other items in an attempt to discredit the United States prior to the war?



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Yes please ! Discuss it and show me how large is the propaganda you're fed with. Seriously, I have never heard about that, I'm all ears



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Part II of II here:




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by hangerhead
reply to post by patientobserver
 


Conspiracy theories are enjoyable enough, but also it's fair to assume that they can also be debunked:

www.debunking911.com...



Funniest attempt at plugging holes by a blackop funded org I have seen to date.

Thanks for the entertainment.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   
To all the Official Story (make)believers, you just don't get it at all and it seems you never will.

You will just continue spouting drivel and trying to defend a lie forever because you cannot face the truth. It is too much for you to take and you cannot admit that you were wrong, lied to and murdered by your own people. It is very saddening to see that it is so ease to deceive you.

No, it is not just the French who are laughing at you, it is the whole world.

PS, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Manouche
 

Swampy, in one of his more cryptic and Gioconda-like posts might be referring to the "Niger yellowcake forgeries" story, in which it is thought that some vindictive, grudge carrying little gremlin in either the Italian or French intelligence services (or even within the CIA itself) made sure that bogus information landed on the desk of Dick (shoot your pal in the face) Cheney in hope of causing him a lot of trouble.

en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe Swampy will elaborate.

While we wait, Manouche, I just wanted to underline for all lovers of French culture that Mylène Farmer is ours, i.e., Canada's, since she was born in Québec, which is also ours. Don't give me a legalistic or moral argument on this. We are holding on to both of them with white knuckles.

Here is a link to one of Mylène Farmer's videos. I'm not embedding it because it is a little racy, but it might encourage people to look into French pop which has some great material. She's described as a combination of Madonna and Kate Bush. I just use the word yummy myself.

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 3-8-2009 by ipsedixit]







 
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join