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.

 

911 reasons why 9/11 was an inside job

page: 1
30
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   

911 reasons why 9/11 was an inside job


www.russiatoday.com

9/11 was the day steel-framed buildings fell like sandcastles, the law of physics worked in reverse and the United States Air Force went missing in action. So what is the real story?

Before attempting to identify “nine hundred and eleven reasons why 9/11 was an inside job” (which will start tomorrow as part of an investigative, four-part report), I would like to briefly mention my own “where-were-you-on-9/11-moment” since it has a lot to do with my reasons for rejecting the official version of events that fateful day.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 9-9-2009 by TheOracle]

[edit on 9-9-2009 by TheOracle]




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Russia Today is investigating the events behind the september 11 attacks.
In this four parts extensive report, beginning tomorrow, the journalist will give 911 reasons why this attack was an inside job. I am really impatient to see some serious analysis from the russian media.

Please star and flag, to keep these reports visible.


www.russiatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 


Hmm Russia Today is fairly amusing at times. Yesterday they were reporting the Georgia-Russia conflict, and used the fact that the Georgian media were the quickest to respond as some kind of proof that Russia weren't prepared for a war. Of course the Georgian media were first to respond, after all the war happened in their country.

Anyway to this issue:

1. Incompetence on the US military seems an adequate reason, unless there is more Russia Today can add.

2. The tower collapses were as expected after burning jet fuel melted & weakened the structures. Gravity also took its course downwards as expected. Laws of motion were certainly not in reverse, otherwise the tower would have shot up into the sky.


It doesn't mean a tower cannot also collapse partially in other circumstances, but certaintly a full collapse is plausible and explainable by science and the conservation of momentum.

I don't understand the sandcastle comparison - maybe the smoke & dust from a distance made it appear that way! One hell of a sandcastle made of glass, steel etc.

I wouldn't hold your breath over Russia today breaking anything more than speculation and spouting more false logic.

It's funny how everybody flags a thread in excitement even when full details of a claim haven't even been given yet by the source website. I am going to predict that Russia Today are just going to rehash old false arguments, and the "911 reasons" are just a title to gain attention.

I suppose it's the ATS way to get excited first, then use thought later. But that's how hoaxes way get too much attention.


[edit on 9-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
It always cracks me up when these truthers claim some new investigation or another is forthcoming. These people aren't out to seek the truth, but rather, to push out their pet conspiracy theories regardless of what the truth actually is, so the only investigation results they'll ever accept are the ones that will rubber stamp their own version of things, and anythign that doesn't is by default "part of the conspiracy". The proof is in the pudding...

-If any new investigation shows the collapse really was due to the plane impacts, would the "controlled demolitions" people believe it?

-If any new investigation showed it was controlled demolitions, would the "laser beams from outer space" people believe it?

-If any new investigation showed the planes were remote controlled, would the "no planes" people believe it?

-If the crash site in Shanksville was shown to have been from a cruise missile that went off course, would the "faked crash site" people believe it?

-If any new investigation showed it was a CIA plot, would the "Jewish World Order" people believe it?

I don't have to tell you what the answer to any of these would be, do I?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

posted by TheOracle

911 reasons why 9/11 was an inside job


www.russiatoday.com



It should be fairly easy to come up with 911 reasons why 9-11 was an inside job. Then a person could add onto those 911 reasons another 503 ignored 1st responders by the 9-11 Whitewash Commission, and their 1st responder 19,000 pages of testimony reporting explosions and demolition throughout the WTC.

911 reasons for 9-11 being an inside job should be simple.




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
ROFLMAO!!!!

The title of the RT page has changed to : "911 reasons why 9/11 was (probably) an inside job"

Not quite as sure as they were before.


Russia Today are attention seeking as I predicted earlier.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
There are several things a 'truther' can never answer. Out of the 1000's of people who would have been involved in such a large-scale, dramatic false-flag attack, who has come forward claiming they were part of the conspiracy? If the government were behind 9/11 in order to steal Iraq's oil, why then was no concrete evidence tying the Iraqi government to the attack 'found?' Finally, if the US government could plan and carry out an attack such as 9/11, why didn't they plant WMD in Iraq?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by stevegmu
 



Finally, if the US government could plan and carry out an attack such as 9/11, why didn't they plant WMD in Iraq?


That's an interesting line of argument that I'd not thought of before.


I'm sure if I spent all of my time thinking about this I could think of at least 911 fallacies in the 9/11 truthers attempts at using logic.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
This is interesting from wikipedia on Russia Today:


RT, previously known as Russia Today, is a globally broadcast English-language news channel from Russia, and the first all-digital Russian TV network, sponsored by the state owned Russian news agency RIA-Novosti.[1]

Western state and commercial media claim that RT has close ties with the Russian state authorities[10][11][12][13][14] and a few years after the channel started broadcasting, for being a "cheerleader" of the Kremlin,[12] applying positive spin to reports about governmental institutions, refraining from criticizing Prime Minister and former Russian president Vladimir Putin or the government, and deliberately and incessantly engaging in US/NATO/EU-bashing through "interviews" in which only Russian ultra-nationalists or highly critical, anti-western "experts" are interviewed--without any probing questions or challenges by the RT reporters, and without even bothering to hear opposing points of view.[2] A CBC News story contains allegations that RT is "a continuation of the old Soviet propaganda services".[2] Western commercial media, including The New York Times, routinely call it "state-run".[15]



According to the June 2009 Freedom House report, RT "mixes sophisticated production with a resolutely upbeat tone on Russia’s image and an invariably pro-Kremlin take on political events."[18]


RT still attempts to deceive viewers on certain matters such as the Georgian conflict. And various technology updates often claim superiority over western or Japanese firms, when in fact they are lagging.

They are proud of their oil and gas though, which is not so bad.

It is interesting to watch and see what the Russian mindset is like from time to time, especially when the BBC news 24 gets like a stuck record at certain times on slow news days.

Recently the reporters tried to emphasize that Russia weren't ready for their 2008 S.Ossetia war a bit too much, like it was a staged or a stand-up comedy sketch, because it was certainly a little bit amusing. One of the presenters asked "so Russia weren't ready for a conflict!", and the other one says "No No No of course, definitely not", and the first one replies "Oh hmmmmm, right I see! So Russia weren't preparing for a war!!!.......(feinting surprise)" etc. Their facial expressions speak a thousand words with their over emphasis, and says quite a lot in my opinion that they are lying through their teeth.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by stevegmu
 



Finally, if the US government could plan and carry out an attack such as 9/11, why didn't they plant WMD in Iraq?


That's an interesting line of argument that I'd not thought of before.


I'm sure if I spent all of my time thinking about this I could think of at least 911 fallacies in the 9/11 truthers attempts at using logic.


Without reading much into this, I assume because they'd have to be turned over to the same UN inspection detail that was operating in Iraq for years before the US invaded. When they found "Made in the USA" stickers all over them, it would be a dead giveaway!

Nuclear weapons can be traced back to the source of their components, due to a number of tell-tale signs. Even the plutonium and uranium can be traced back to the mine it came from. This can not be faked. The same goes for biological weapons, due to the particular (and trademark-able) arrangements created. Therefore, it would be pretty easy to determine whether or not they're faked...

Rewey



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by stevegmu
 



Finally, if the US government could plan and carry out an attack such as 9/11, why didn't they plant WMD in Iraq?


That's an interesting line of argument that I'd not thought of before.


I'm sure if I spent all of my time thinking about this I could think of at least 911 fallacies in the 9/11 truthers attempts at using logic.


Without reading much into this, I assume because they'd have to be turned over to the same UN inspection detail that was operating in Iraq for years before the US invaded. When they found "Made in the USA" stickers all over them, it would be a dead giveaway!

Nuclear weapons can be traced back to the source of their components, due to a number of tell-tale signs. Even the plutonium and uranium can be traced back to the mine it came from. This can not be faked. The same goes for biological weapons, due to the particular (and trademark-able) arrangements created. Therefore, it would be pretty easy to determine whether or not they're faked...

Rewey


WMD comprises a lot more than nuclear weapons. We could easily get Russian biological and chemical stock from Central and South Asia, or through back channels in Israel. These would be the same type of weapons Iraq would have.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Here we have a cookie cutter grade a kerosene Jet Fuel explosion orange flame and white smoke,





a millisecond after, whatever that projectile is, done this....





Causing an explosion in excesses of 200 metres in length and 100 metres in height also mind boggling broken laws of propulsion that a plane travelling over 500 mph, can back blast an explosion 75 metres behind it.

Let`s put things in perspective and see what caused it....

Some basic maths..

1. A-B fuel ( consist of t/o, climb, cruise and descend fuel )
2. Approach fuel.....depends on type.
3. Contingency fuel... 'X'% ( depends on operator )....for engine wear and tear etc.
4. Holding fuel...normally 30 minutes duration ( if your plane consumes 1000 pounds/hr, then it'll be 500 pound ).
5. diversion fuel ( 1+2 ).
6.Taxy and start up fuel.

If you fly to a destination where there's no fuel available, then you might have to carry extra.... A-B+6 fuel plus B-C (back to your departure airfield, which consist of 1-6). cater for extra if you think the weather might turn bad or if you expect long delay by ATCs remember.....heavy aircraft burns more fuel. so, if you load too much fuel in the tanks, you might ended burning more and won't be very economically.

A fully loaded 767 - 200ER maximum fuel capacity is 90 cubic metres for a 12,000 km flight. This day it`s pay load was 11000 gallons which = around 40 cubic metres, 34 cbm for flight to L.A. + 6 cbm for 1 hour reserve.

It had used 6cbm in 1 hour flying = 34 cbm left, we now have a way of depicting fuel left via a cube, in this case a scaled to ratio squared cube measuring 4m x 3m=12m x 3m = 36 cubic metres (2 more cubic metres than the actual amount), now after looking at the explosion we can safely guarantee as it`s x12 the size it should be, will there be enough fuel left to weaken 90,000 tons of steel and reduce to dust 110 acres of concrete?... You decide.

Notice the exact scaled to ratio squared cube..



When this has been fully debunked including the phosphorus white smoke clearly seen in picture two, i`ll post some more.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Another quick reply, to those talking about hiding WMD`s....

Are you saying that America went to war over WMD`s that were not there in the 1st place?.

Does this mean that America will lie, and then declare war on a Muslim country?.

Here`s a shovel for the hole you are digging, lmfao, way to put a point over by clearly declaring that the government you are trying to defend, creates false scenarios to feed their war machine addiction.

Cute.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Not really, it was an assertion that applies to the 9/11 truthers.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Part 1 is up
(I wish I had the right to put it in the OP)
www.russiatoday.com...


if a mod can put a link to the part 1 on the OP i'd appreciate.

It's a long read but here are some bits




Another indication that the WTC fires were far below the temperatures needed for a catastrophic collapse was evident by the tragic image of office workers who were actually standing inside the gaping mouth of the airplanes’ point of entry. Indeed, much of the jet fuel that both airplanes were carrying was immediately blown out of the buildings upon impact in magnificent orange fireballs.





“The floor models didn’t collapse in the tests,” Ryan said, “and these (models) were in furnaces in much hotter temperatures, for a longer period of time (as compared with the temperature and endurance of the fires on 9-11). Yet, they still did not collapse.”





“There was something truly inexplicable about the speed of the collapse. If we drop a weight from a height of around 400 meters, which was the height of the towers, the time it would take to reach the ground… would take approximately 9 seconds.” “The impact (of the airliner) was about two-thirds of the way up the tower,” Marini continued. “But even if the section above collapsed suddenly due to the structure giving way, and even considering that the impact of the section above was enormous, and therefore somewhat weakened the resistance of the structure below, it’s clear that, due to the resistance of the undamaged part below, this tower should not have fallen at such a speed. But it fell as if there was nothing below it.”





“Anyone serious about solving a crime,” comments Chandler, “knows the importance of physical evidence. Yet here (at Ground Zero), the crime scene has been scrubbed, the evidence destroyed, and the investigation delayed for years.” “Destroying a crime scene is itself a criminal act,” Chandler concludes. “Destroying the steel has absolutely no justification except to cover up the cause of the collapse.”






In the weeks and months after 9/11, there were many reports of “pools of molten metal” in the remains of the World Trade Center. In fact, the presence of these intensely hot pockets hampered the cleanup efforts until December 20 – over three months after the collapses!


[edit on 10-9-2009 by TheOracle]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by Seventh
 


Not really, it was an assertion that applies to the 9/11 truthers.


Okay.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
It should be fairly easy to come up with 911 reasons why 9-11 was an inside job.


Yes. of course. Fairly easy. Will you submit those 911 reasons at the trials, Preston? Should I be concerned? Should I quake in my boots at your "fairly easy" compilation of 911 reasons? When you live in a fantasy world of big .gif images and ALL CAPS TYPING, coming up with 911 anything is fairly easy.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
NIST Engineer John Gross lied and lied and lied; even about the proven molten metal under the WTC. Everybody knows he lied. A government agency (U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey) deliberately has kept the evidence on-line on its own website for 8 years; proving that John Gross lied about the molten metal.

Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001

The 9-11 Whitewash Committee of fatcat political hacks covered it up.



John Gross did deliberately lie. Other members of NIST did lie.

The 9-11 Whitewash Commission did ignore the 503 1st responder testimonies and their 19,000 pages of eyewitness accounts describing explosions and demolition. Those 503 WTC 1st responders were willing and wanted to testify before the Commission under oath. The cover-up of treason would also be treason.





[edit on 9/10/09 by SPreston]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Are you saying that America went to war over WMD`s that were not there in the 1st place?.
Does this mean that America will lie, and then declare war on a Muslim country

! ! ! YES ! ! ! My gov did it too !

Look ***carefuly*** to the incubator lie, there:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Blue skies.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 




Not really, it was an assertion that applies to the 9/11 truthers.


911 Truthers do not believe in “assertions”, they believe in facts and sciences, only uninformed OS believers or disinformationist believe in “assertions”. Because most of the OS is assumptions and assertions, it is mostly a made up fairytale.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join