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: 2
30
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



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.


Hmmmmmmm, your comment is evidence that you use assertions rather than evidence.

Belief is a non-requirement for a fact or correct use of scientific evidence.

9/11 truther's haven't used evidence and science correctly yet on this forum in any recent threads, and likely not at all. False usage is prevalent in every 9/11 truther thread, and completely pointless.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Here is part 2: The Pentagon Crash
www.russiatoday.com...




... “The target is descending and he is doing multiple aileron rolls, looks like he is out of control,” the TULSA 13 pilot radioed back to his command station. “It’s soon to impact the ground he is in a descending spiral.” The plane crashes and all of the passengers, who probably died long before the plane had hit the ground, were killed. Compare: On Sept. 11 at 9:37 a.m., one hour and twenty minutes after the hijackings were reported, American Airlines Flight 77 slams into the west wall of the Pentagon without ever being followed, intercepted or shot down by US fighter jets. ...



“Stop the 9-11 cover-up”
www.russiatoday.com...
Protests are happening to denounce the cover up in this anniversary.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
9/11 truther's haven't used evidence and science correctly yet on this forum in any recent threads, and likely not at all.

Utilize the search funtion and feel free to test that assumption on any of my 9-11 related posts or threads. Registered two months ago, and already an ATS expert eh? That's pretty arrogant considering the company you're in now.
Thanks for the thread oracle.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   
This is amazing ya its very easy to watch Russia Today. Just google "watch Russia today online".

If you use Firefox you will need the wmv plug in for Firefox again google it if not ie will run it as is.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124

The tower collapses were as expected after burning jet fuel melted & weakened the structures.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by john124]


Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. In order to burn hot enough to propel an airplane the engine needs a compressor. Without the compressor, it is just burning at 800 to1500 degrees. Not hot enough to do anything to the massive steel at the WTC.

I ran the annealing furnaces at a major tool manufacturer for about ten years. Our furnaces which were used to SOFTEN the small parts tools are made of usually ran about 1800 degrees for 14 hours in order to SOFTEN the steel in pliers handles and other small parts. Jet fuel at the WTC did not burn that hot or that long and the steel was much more massive so it would have taken much more time to soften than small tool parts.

Nobody is fooling me. I KNOW BETTER FROM ACTUAL EXPERIENCE WITH HEAT AND STEEL.

There was more than jet fuel burning at the WTC.




[edit on 9-11-2009 by groingrinder]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 




9/11 truther's haven't used evidence and science correctly yet on this forum in any recent threads, and likely not at all. False usage is prevalent in every 9/11 truther thread, and completely pointless.


I shouldn’t even respond to this, you are spreading disinformation. Your statement above is a lie!



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I still like the earlier post.

The people who accept the government line (at least until a better one is presented) all believe the same thing happend.

The truthers cannot agree on a single story.

So, why don't the truthers get together in... ohhh I don't know, lets call it "Truther-con"

and once you figure out what happend we can work on proving or disproving a single theory.

because only ONE event occured, granted it may have had several components, but only one set of circumstances happened.

So, come up with one story and lets discuss.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Great work, love the ideas behind this. The size of the explosions at the crime scenes were radically different, but issues like oxygen levels at low/high altitides (sp) and the true amount of fuel on each plane is up for question. And questions are meant to be answered, will it be you or Spreston that gets there first?!?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by irongunner
 


I think you might be mistaken, from my estimate preceisely 86% of people can agree that 'Something is rotten" at the heart of 9/11. Hey, wanna challange me to an opionion poll-off to see if i am right. So maybe your last thoughts on this issue need modifying, or maybe mine do?

Do you agree or disagree with this statement 'Something is rotten at the heart of 9/11" total the results and see for certain whether 'truthers' can agree on something.

Power and Equality

PS hope i have not misinterpreted your post but to clarify, the theory we should discuss is 'Something is rotten at the heart of 9/11' agree disagree. That is a theory and in the words of Gobama, I will smite all those who misrepresent me'

[edit on 11-9-2009 by yyyyyyyyyy]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   


Russia Today
covers 9/11



[edit on 11-9-2009 by conar]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by conar
 

S&F, The videos where great thanks.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
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]
how bout how the 911 commission completely ignored WTC7 exsistence. why are they so afraid of talking about it and what are they hiding?



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Ah geeze, and here I thought there was going to be something new and exciting, and what do I get? The same old garbage copy and pasted from every truther site that was addressed and debunked years and years ago.

You know, re-dredging old junk and trying to make it sound new is wrong. I'm surprised that this website is taking four days to copy and paste all the garbage, when they could very well just repost the dusty old links to infowars, loosechange, 911research, etc. save them a lot of time and effort.




posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Ah geeze, and here I thought there was going to be something new and exciting, and what do I get?


hey man its news to me this the first day on this website



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I was convinced 8 years ago, but if you still believe the official story today, there has to be something wrong with you. I mean that in the kindest possible way... nothing has been debunked as the skeptics say, unless they somehow mean that when someone disagrees with the truthers, something is debunked... ?




In short, 9/11 represented the world’s largest crime scene of modern times, but was never treated as one. In fact, the crime scenes at Ground Zero, the Pentagon and a patch of woods in Pennsylvania were cordoned off and scrubbed clean before any forensic work could occur. The steel from the WTC towers was quickly hauled to Asia and melted down, while photographs show workers hauling away large crates from the Pentagon site, the contents of which were never revealed to the public.



That sums it up nicely.




[edit on 12-9-2009 by Copernicus]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus

I was convinced 8 years ago, but if you still believe the official story today, there has to be something wrong with you. I mean that in the kindest possible way... nothing has been debunked as the skeptics say, unless they somehow mean that when someone disagrees with the truthers, something is debunked... ?




In short, 9/11 represented the world’s largest crime scene of modern times, but was never treated as one. In fact, the crime scenes at Ground Zero, the Pentagon and a patch of woods in Pennsylvania were cordoned off and scrubbed clean before any forensic work could occur. The steel from the WTC towers was quickly hauled to Asia and melted down, while photographs show workers hauling away large crates from the Pentagon site, the contents of which were never revealed to the public.



That sums it up nicely.




[edit on 12-9-2009 by Copernicus]




And exactly what hasnt been debunked? How so? Please do enlighten us on how nothing, in your opinion, has been debunked? I ask you that sincerely. Because as for the rest of us, 99% of the garbage that was presented by "truthers" in the last 8 years has been debunked thoroughly. Simply repeating the same things over and over is no way to get ahead.

Everything you have just quoted has been addressed and quite well by many many others, and they proven how most of that quote is based on nothing more than assumptions, misinformation and DISinformation.

So if nothing has been debunked, point them out and show us what hasnt been.

Oh and incredulity is also no way to argue a point.

[edit on 9/12/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Just what specificly has been debunked here by you and your fanciful 'rest of us' with your broad and sweeping generalizations and stereotyping radek? You go from thread to thread calling us truthers and denying things that have been verified and proven like the molten steel that was found on all three sites of the WTC and have the audacity to call that debunking? in your own words, "Simply repeating the same things over and over is no way to get ahead.". If you're so convinced you or anyone else has debunked something, then let's have it, what have you debunked here in the last eight years?



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Just what specificly has been debunked here by you and your fanciful 'rest of us' with your broad and sweeping generalizations and stereotyping radek? You go from thread to thread calling us truthers and denying things that have been verified and proven like the molten steel that was found on all three sites of the WTC and have the audacity to call that debunking? in your own words, "Simply repeating the same things over and over is no way to get ahead.". If you're so convinced you or anyone else has debunked something, then let's have it, what have you debunked here in the last eight years?


well lets see..
for starters, I posted up the alternate and more plausible reasons for the molten "stuff" that was found, by going through pages and pages of metallurgical websites and professionals, and posting up the most probable reasons for the corroded beams and "molten stuff", discovered. I along with others have pointed out how not a single person who claims molten steel has ever tested the alleged molten pools of it. I have posted facts on corrosion, hot corrosion, oxidation, and the causes and effects of it on steel, which help explain the high temps in the pile along with "molten stuff".
Time and again the thermite nonsense has been debunked, Jones' paper has been proven to be the faultiest paper ever written and the manner it was created, not to mention the obvious flaws in execution, and results review.
Flight 77 has been proven and a plane in general has been proven to impact the Pentagon, while at the same time destroying the CIT fantasy of magical flyovers and decoys, which make zero sense.
The Shanksville impact and debris has been brought forward numerous times as proof of a plane crash there. Every claim of fakery has been addressed.
TV fakery has been addressed and debunked.
The twisted and edited accounts of eyewitnesses on 9/11, by the "truthers", have been thoroughly proven to been tampered by the "truthers" who used them.
Collapse times: done
Debris: done
aircraft: done

Its all been done. debunked. There are few websites online that have addressed practically every point, and I have yet to see a single "truther" do a decent or coherent rebuttal of anything presented. On these pages of ATS things have been repeated to death. The problem is that every time its been presented, its been ignored, hand-waved away, laughed at, etc, and then the same garbage is asked again. After a while, to us, it seems none of the "truthers" are interested in the truth. Just the "twoof"!

And yes, we end up generalizing the whole range of you, because no matter what you claim to believe or not, or pretend not to, you all still end up eventually parroting the same old tired nonsense, with the same attitude, same incredulity, same preconceived notions and assumptions, and when we try to explain it to you in a civil manner to educate, clarify, or correct anything claimed, it all gets rebuffed the exact same way and everything was for nothing. So obviously, some people get a little fed up with this little game by the "truthers", so interested in the "TRUTH", yet when the facts are presented and misconceptions straightened out they behave in the EXACT same manner with their pre-conceived notions that refuse to change.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
molten "stuff"..."molten stuff"..."molten stuff"...The twisted and edited accounts of eyewitnesses on 9/11..."truthers..."truthers".... Collapse times:done...Debris:done...aircraft:done..."truther" ..."truthers"..."twoof"And yes, we end up generalizing the whole range of you... little game by the "truthers"

Yeah, that's what I thought. First off, the "molten stuff" is molten steel it was confirmed by experts in their field who were on site, it was photographed, and widely reported in reputable publications. Your magic rust theory doesn't explain it, and your categorical denial of it doesn't make it go away, if that's your idea of debunking something, then that explains why you might think any of the other information presented here over the last eight years has also been debunked.
Collapse times have been debunked huh? If you or anyone else has explained why the buildings collapsed at near free fall speeds while meeting no resistance from the intact structure below them, then you're either having a laugh or your in denial of the obvious.
Ok general, I'm home with the flu and can't do much else, so let's dance, shall we?
Let's start at the beginning so we don't miss anything here...
Why was the Bin Laden Construction Group, a favored contractor of Yamasaki, on site during the construction of the WTC complex asking about where to plant explosives, and what do you suppose David Rockefeller meant when he said "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.", bearing in mind it was David and Nelson Rockefeller that pushed for the construction of these towers through the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Development Association which he founded?
Answer this one, and we'll go on to the next point you seem to think has been debunked.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Yeah, that's what I thought. First off, the "molten stuff" is molten steel it was confirmed by experts in their field who were on site, it was photographed, and widely reported in reputable publications. Your magic rust theory doesn't explain it, and your categorical denial of it doesn't make it go away, if that's your idea of debunking something, then that explains why you might think any of the other information presented here over the last eight years has also been debunked.


Really? it has? Where? Where are the pictures of molten puddles of steel, with corresponding metallurgical analysis done by reputable metallurgists.



Collapse times have been debunked huh? If you or anyone else has explained why the buildings collapsed at near free fall speeds while meeting no resistance from the intact structure below them, then you're either having a laugh or your in denial of the obvious.
Ok general, I'm home with the flu and can't do much else, so let's dance, shall we?


Free fall speed? OH you must mean the free fall of the DEBRIS and EXTERIOR columns that hit the round at free fall speed. Ah yes THAT free fall speed. Yeah you know, I dont know how 15-30 seconds = free fall speed of the building collapse. And I don't recall seeing someone drop the building from a plane either. Once again, the only free falling was the initial external column debris which first fell off the towers during the initial collapse. THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.



Let's start at the beginning so we don't miss anything here...
Why was the Bin Laden Construction Group, a favored contractor of Yamasaki, on site during the construction of the WTC complex asking about where to plant explosives, and what do you suppose David Rockefeller meant when he said "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.", bearing in mind it was David and Nelson Rockefeller that pushed for the construction of these towers through the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Development Association which he founded?
Answer this one, and we'll go on to the next point you seem to think has been debunked.


Wait wait wait. I thought it was evil Zionists that did 9/11. Or was it Bush and Co.? Or wait, it was rouge agents in the government. Wait it was the NWO that did it. No wait, it was Bin Laden when he was still a little teenager. No wait.............. It was Rockefeller that wanted the Twin Towers to be built so they can blown up 30 years later! And he worked with the Bin Laden Family to build the WTC and plan to blow them up. But wait! Bin Laden doesnt exist! It was all CIA! NOO WAAAAIIIT!!!!!!!! ARGHH!



I love this part. I just love how this just gets funnier and funnier. You people cant even stick to one story, or even stay on the same page with each other.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join