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.

 

'Top Ten Photos 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts Hate'

page: 5
77
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Again, you twist the words to fit your OS agenda.

Global Hawk had a weapons platform testing capability from the day that test flights began and this is common knowledge. It carried "dummy ordinance" as well as video and imaging upload/download also.



Twist words? Me?


You and the TM are the ones twisting reality here. Common knowledge it had a weapons platform testing capability? Common knowledge to whom? The TM?
Those that cant even get their stories straight about 9/11?

The Global Hawk has NO offensive capabiltiies, only recon and sensor packages. No missiles. No bombs. No rockets. Nada. Scouring the internet, books, hell anything I can find from way back when, I cannot find a single shred of any weapons platform capability ever being tested. The only, ONLY mention of any drones being used as offensive weapons platforms is the Predator Drones.

i did find one mention of weapons, but it was here:

By mid 2005 the RQ-4 Block 20 is already in production. The larger airframe (wingspan of 130.9 feet, and 47.6 feet long) is configured with more payload bays and two external pylons. The US Air Force does not plan to use weapons with the Global Hawk. These payloads could therefore be used to carry other systems, such as deployable sensors and expendable mini-drones. In total, the new platform will increase the payload from its current 2,000 pounds (Block 10) to 3,000 pounds. More sensors will be installed, including SIGINT and maritime search radar.

www.defense-update.com...

Notice, this is the Block 20, a larger airframe with more capability. Not the first generation Global Hawks. This was developed in 2005.




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Let's look at a different view of this photo:




The following image was recently released by the NYPD along with other images. It is a view of the same collapse as above, but from the NYPD helicopter:




Notice the two columns in the middle-left that have white smoke coming from the ends from just being cut with explosives? Pictures really are worth a thousand words.

If you take into account all the first responder testimony to the flashes in the lower/middle levels of both towers as they were collapsing, and take into account every other aspect of the collapses, controlled demolition is the only option for what we are seeing and what happened to those mighty towers that day.


[edit on 11-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]


Or how about this the beams are falling through the dust cloud and what you claim is smoke is dust



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
great pictures! starred!

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 4/15/2010 by semperfortis]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I've been reading all different theories about 9/11 for years and I've never seen anything matching what this guy is talking about with these:




3. WTC6 lies in ruins. Conspiracy theorists have also argued that WTC7 couldn't have been struck by debris since WTC6 - which lies between the twin towers and WTC7 - "wasn't that damaged". Note that the center has entirely collapsed. In spite of evidence like this, and reports from fire-fighters, who used instruments to measure the gradual movement and distortion of WTC7's structure over several hours up until its collapse, Truthers still prefer to believe that a controlled demolition occurred.


Never have I heard anyone claim "WTC6 wasn't that damaged." Infinitely more often than that, I've heard people suspect that it was also bombed given how extreme the gutting damage to that building was. Just saying -- this guy is obviously talking about personal experiences that seem at least to me to be the exception.





4 & 5. Fires rage in WTC5 and WTC6. Many conspiracy theorists refuse to accept that fire could have spread to WTC7, even though fires clearly raged across much of the WTC complex.


I have also never heard that WTC7 was not actually on fire.

This page is looking more and more to me like a bunch of straw-men.

I have personally posted loads of images of WTC4, 5, and 6, all burning, because for one thing, these buildings were more fully involved than WTC7 and made use of a much more fragile structure since they didn't have to carry the same weight, and for another, all the smoke coming from them was contributing to the massive dust and smoke cloud behind WTC7. In other words all the smoke behind WTC7 was NOT indicative of super-massive-fires-that-no-one-photographed inside of Building 7. It was a combination of at least 4 buildings burning plus the smoldering remains of the Twin Towers still smoking as well.



10. Debris out-paces the collapse of the tower. Many conspiracy theorists claim that the World Trade Center towers fell equal to (or ludicrously faster than) free-fall speeds. Many photos clearly show falling debris out-pacing the collapse of the building, proving that the structures fell at well below free-fall speeds.


There ARE photos of the building blowing out ("squibs") faster than the free-falling debris outside is falling. So whatever point he was trying to make with this is automatically moot. The "debunker" position then becomes, that the collapse inside of the building doesn't have to happen at the same time the debris is being ejected outwards in all directions, or that air pressure was somehow compressed and channeled ahead of the collapse to blow out random windows, and all kinds of nonsense.


And for people who are always talking about how we supposedly only go by blogs and YouTube videos, isn't it funny that that's all you "debunkers" are using anymore? Whenever I ask what the NIST or FEMA reports actually proved, you all clam up and won't talk about it!



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



reports from fire-fighters, who used instruments to measure the gradual movement and distortion of WTC7's structure over several hours up until its collapse, Truthers still prefer to believe that a controlled demolition occurred.


I notice you included this in your quote without making a comment on it. Do you agree then that WTC7's structure was failing due to fire? If not, do you realize the implications of the above statement?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 




Do you mean these fires in WTC7 are those the ones that didn't happen.

911review.org...

Or how about this pic of damaged that didn't occur?

www.attivissimo.net...

Re the falling building panels open your eyes large panels falling straight
down from higher up the building as you can see many floors of the
building that have not collapsed behind them.

www.layscience.net...

So towers did not fall at free fall speed.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Ive got a question why do people even argue this point anymore? I mean really people come on.If you dont believe the official story thats fine but do you really think some evidence is going to pop up after 9 yrs that will suddenly make your endeavors vindicated. If none of these theories have been proved in 9 yrs Im afraid at this point the obsession is just unhealthy.

Well at least i get a good laugh from people that think they understand explosives without actually having ever used them.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
reply to post by bsbray11
 



reports from fire-fighters, who used instruments to measure the gradual movement and distortion of WTC7's structure over several hours up until its collapse, Truthers still prefer to believe that a controlled demolition occurred.


I notice you included this in your quote without making a comment on it. Do you agree then that WTC7's structure was failing due to fire? If not, do you realize the implications of the above statement?


Yes, I realize the implications of the statement, and no, I don't believe WTC7 failed due to fire. It would have been impossible to predict WTC7 was going to do, what it did. How could the FDNY predict something was going to happen, that had absolutely no precedent? I don't care if some damaged part of the building (and the damage was limited as even the federal government tells you themselves in their own report on it) was leaning. And I'll repeat, I don't give a damn if some damaged section of the building was leaning. The greatest part of the building was still standing normally and there would have been absolutely no way to guess fire would have ever done that, because it has not, ever, before or since.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Do you mean these fires in WTC7 are those the ones that didn't happen.


If you think I'm saying WTC7 didn't suffer fires by reading my post above then you are having a lot of trouble with your reading comprehension. This is just an observation, not a personal attack. You have read my post completely wrong. Please read my post correctly.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

How could the FDNY predict something was going to happen, that had absolutely no precedent?


It's not the first time that FFers have suspended their efforts cuz they believed the building to be unsafe and in danger of falling. A couple of the buildings that the TM like to mention that DIDN'T fall due to fire ironically had the fire fighting efforts suspended for the very reason that hey believed they would fall.

Other than that, your argument once again relies on that sorry truther canard that nothing can happen for a first time.


I don't care if some damaged part of the building was leaning.


Good for you. Who cares what you think about structures and fire and their safety? I'll take the FFers views over yours any day. The fact is that they evacuated 7 cuz THEY thought it would fail.


The greatest part of the building was still standing normally


Explain how this happens. Part of the building is leaning but other parts aren't? How can that happen unless the 2 parts have separated? And do you have any support for this statement?


and there would have been absolutely no way to guess fire would have ever done that, because it has not, ever, before or since.


And the sorry truther canard rears its head once again.

Very sad.....



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Are you a qualified structural engineer HOW do you know what would have happened WTC7 was not the best design in the world ,fire damage and structural damage had happened.

911review.org...


www.attivissimo.net...

[edit on 16-4-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yes, I realize the implications of the statement


No, I really don't think that you do. Instruments told the firefighters that the building's structure was gradually failing, ergo if the fire is sustained, collapse is inevitable. But let's deny reality and suppose you are right. Steel framed buildings are somehow invulnerable to fire. Why monitor the structure at all? Why be concerned about weakening and therefore a possible collapse?

I know, bsbray, that you are uncomfortable with how the building fell in one sudden, complete motion. But that is what happens when a structure fails and cannot hold up anymore. Your subjective opinion of visual evidence does not substantiate claims as big as yours.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It's not the first time that FFers have suspended their efforts cuz they believed the building to be unsafe and in danger of falling.


That's not the point. The point is they had absolutely no history of damaged buildings doing this, regardless of how it was damaged:



Even NIST's report told you this has never happened before.

Remember?

The rest of your whole post is a "canard."



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Are you a qualified structural engineer HOW do you know what would have happened WTC7 was not the best design in the world ,fire damage and structural damage had happened.


No, I'm not, and neither are firefighters, and not only that, but structural engineers don't study collapsing buildings. So, you also don't make a damned lick of sense with this post.

You are emphasizing my argument by pointing out no one had any idea how this building would fall. Firefighters included. What it did was completely unprecedented and I have yet to see an explanation for many of the "collapse" characteristics. And because it free-fell I happen to know it was a demolition.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Instruments told the firefighters that the building's structure was gradually failing, ergo if the fire is sustained, collapse is inevitable.


That is not what their instruments tell them.

If you want to debate this further, post the information on the kind of instrument they were using, what exactly it measures, and how this data is interpreted by firefighters. I'm an electronics engineering major. I know how technical data works and that it has to be interpreted, and it doesn't mean just whatever you feel like saying it means based on hearsay and ignorance.


I know, bsbray, that you are uncomfortable with how the building fell in one sudden, complete motion. But that is what happens when a structure fails and cannot hold up anymore.


Right, when they are demolished. Otherwise, no, they don't.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
It is your responsibility to prove the conspiracy angle, is it not? This is not dissimilar to an argument in the UFO Aliens forum. You are claiming the extraordinary, yet you provide no substance to your claims. You rely purely on your own belief that it looks like a controlled demo. We don't share that belief. You don't even attempt to explain it, or discuss perceived similarities. When challenged, you just... post the video. Do you really expect to be taken seriously?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Of all the images of that day, one stands out for me the most, when a woman in a red dress, black hair, maybe 30's, was standing on what once would have been a window ledge 40 odd stories up in the air, don't know exact height but who cares, and making a decision to jump into that void, pushed by a terrible choice of certain death.

Someday i would have liked to have those responsible for putting that women on that ledge be held accountable for that.

And too this day i really don't think that will happen, because all everybody ever talks about is the buildings. Its not the buildings that were important.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It's not the first time that FFers have suspended their efforts cuz they believed the building to be unsafe and in danger of falling.


That's not the point. The point is they had absolutely no history of damaged buildings doing this, regardless of how it was damaged:


And yet, the facts remains unchallenged:

1- that FFers have indeed quit operations before cuz they believed the building to be unsafe
2- the FDNY did that very thing, for that very reason
3- they were correct in their assessment



Even NIST's report told you this has never happened before.


What, EXACTLY, was new?

Be specific, if you dare, without the quote mining, if you dare....



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
It is your responsibility to prove the conspiracy angle, is it not?


Not at all. That's like saying it's my responsibility to prove to everyone else in the country what all exactly happened on 9/11, ie what an entire investigation should prove. That responsibility was never and is never going to be mine. I can cite specific facts for you, and I can ask you questions about what you just assume and take for granted, but there is no way for me to provide you with a full and proper criminal investigation.


This is not dissimilar to an argument in the UFO Aliens forum. You are claiming the extraordinary, yet you provide no substance to your claims.


The problem is that taking the default stance that something did not happen or something definitely does not exist is every bit as fallacious as claiming something did happen or does exist, when you don't have evidence. The most logical position is to simply be agnostic until actual evidence sways you one way or another. I ask you guys to provide the specific evidence that proves how these buildings collapsed, or that proves what was causing the explosions, and you always back down and can never man up to either of those challenges. Yet you'll keep putting on like you know everything that happened that day anyway. You don't.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
1. Planted evidence
2. Debris damaging only one side yet WTC7 collapses symmetrically.
3. WTC6 endured ridiculous damage compared to WTC7 yet didn't completely collapse, many sections are still standing completely up.
4&5. Fires to WTC6 do not translate to other buildings
6. Plume means nothing
7. Planted evidence
8. Only because all of there support had been knocked out physically by the plane, not fire.
9. Wait, so just because workmen cutting beams after the collapse means they were never cut before it?
10. The building should have taken at least 50 seconds to collapse if it wasn't by demolition.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join