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: 6
77
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
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


Firefighters saying "unsafe" does not equate with this:



Not on any scientific basis whatsoever can that ever be argued, that they were predicting the above.

Until you understand this you will continue to fail to grasp what I am even trying to explain to you.




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....



As federal agency declares 'new phenomenon' downed WTC 7, activists cry foul
Stephen C. Webster
Published: Thursday August 21, 2008


rawstory.com...

[edit on 16-4-2010 by bsbray11]




posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Firefighters saying "unsafe" does not equate with this:


Why? Cuz you say so?


Not on any scientific basis whatsoever can that ever be argued, that they were predicting the above.


Just face it, they know how structures react to fires better than you do. You rely on incredulity, rather than training and experience. What a joke...


Until you understand this you will continue to fail to grasp what I am even trying to explain to you.


Until you understand that they are better schooled and experienced than you are, you will continue to fail to grasp what has already been explained to you.




As federal agency declares 'new phenomenon' downed WTC 7, activists cry foul


C'mon, in your own words, so that I can show everyone that reads this where you're trying to quote mine and twist the facts to conform to your conspiracy agenda.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
Firefighters saying "unsafe" does not equate with this:


Why? Cuz you say so?




If you think I didn't provide a reason you REALLY need to go back and read my posts again.


Just face it, they know how structures react to fires better than you do.


It's clear to me you don't realize at all what you're posting. The firefighters did not predict WTC7 was going to globally collapse in a free-fall to the ground. They said it was "unsafe." End of story. You're trying to blow that up to mean much more than it actually does mean.



As federal agency declares 'new phenomenon' downed WTC 7, activists cry foul


C'mon, in your own words, so that I can show everyone that reads this where you're trying to quote mine and twist the facts to conform to your conspiracy agenda.


I just gave you a source. How would I quote mine my own words?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Thanks Steve for posting these, although I don't see not even one 911 conspirator changing what they believe about the events of that day. They think what they do and I don't think there is anything that would change their minds, they have had evidence prior, they have had testimony from survivors, they have all the pictures, ect, the facts, are right before them, but they turn them into a form of paradolia. There is no reasoning with someone who thinks they see what they think they see no matter how much truth you place in their lap.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Seems like nothing new in the photographs, except I learned something from photo 3 about WTC Tower 6.

I am sorry but I have read enough about 9/11 to not bother with unending circular discussions about it. Truth finds a way to reveal itself.

It was the comments that went with irrelevant photo #8 that disclosed the purpose of the lay science article - the strawman argument about inability to include thermite in an explosive mix seems to be used everywhere.

Speak to the CEO of Controlled Demolition Inc about it. He is not hard to get hold of.

Also

www.journalof911studies.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by space cadet
 


How do you think we feel?

You mention "paradolia." Let's look at the coincident wargames and federal exercises occuring on 9/11, for example. That includes multiple NORAD/FAA/Air Force wargames/exercises as well as FEMA in Manhattan on September 10th setting up a command post for a "bio-terror exercise" they had planned for the 12th, the NRO near DC simulating a plane flying into their HQ building that morning, etc.


Pareidolia (pronounced /pærɪˈdoʊliə/ pa-ri-DOE-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant.


I submit that what I just described to you is a group of wargames/exercises that evoke thoughts of 9/11 just by themselves. The Air Force simulating hijacked aircraft over the mainland US, the NRO simulating a plane flying into their HQ near DC, FEMA in Manhattan the night before setting up a command post. Those aren't just "random." At least if they were truly random, it would be one HELL of a coincidence, and someone would have to be pretty dense or ignorant not to admit at least that much. And have they been proven to be complete coincidence? No. Instead, we got absolutely no investigation of those things whatsoever. And that's just one little piece of 9/11.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
bsbray

Sorry to ask. I lurked here a couple of years ago.

Can I recall that perhaps you were a supporter in the main of the official government position on events?

If I am mistaken, forgive me. If not, I am interested in what may have led you to ask more questions.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by nal War
 


Years ago before I joined this website.

What made me start asking more questions is when I saw WTC7 collapse for the first time. It was probably around 2004.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Thank you bsbray.

I might have you confused with someone else, but I agree that WTC7 is a plausible reason to start looking at the corruption in the war effort, the money trail, insurance companies, developers, engineering defects and impossibilities, and the minute details that the administration concealed about what it was doing prior to 9/11 and in the clean-up, that it still tries to conceal through commissions and all else.

Edit: "it" trying to conceal means the officers and elected politicians in the previous govt, and those in the current one in on the covering up

[edit on 17-4-2010 by nal War]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You say its impossible for buildings to collapse like they did a quick bit of text for you to read below from this site.

www.debunking911.com...


There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse

Visit the site and read the rest.

See what people say and what happed are 2 different things I mean one poster on here on another thread posted a picture of a collapsed building claiming this is what should have happened to the towers only the building he linked to was

a) Made of reinforced concrete.
b) Not hit by a plane.
c) Not weakened by fire.
d) Was only 5/6 floors high.
e) The building had been brought down due to a quake.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
There is no reasoning with someone who thinks they see what they think they see no matter how much truth you place in their lap.


It goes like this:

There is no reasoning someone out of a position when they were never reasoned into it in the first place.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

It's clear to me you don't realize at all what you're posting. The firefighters did not predict WTC7 was going to globally collapse in a free-fall to the ground.


So then explain to everybody why they evacuated a collapse zone around 7.


I just gave you a source. How would I quote mine my own words?


Uh..... I know that you're having trouble with this, but providing a source that you didn't write is NOT your own words.

Sack up.

What was new?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Alright. Would you like to explain how the collapse looks like a controlled demo? I hear no booms, I see no explosion flashes sequentially blowing out the structure, nothing occurs preceding the fall, no visible or audible sign of CD at all. We are left with your incredulity, that the building should fall piece by piece for some reason, or that the building should stand because as we all know fire does not weaken steel.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Your "debunking911" website has no more credibility than a "truther" website. Just pretend I linked you to one of those in response, and call it even. Yes, a lot of "firsts" happened on 9/11, what an easy and convenient way to brush off so many unexplained anomalies.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
There is one characteristic common to nearly all debunker claims; and that is they nearly ALWAYS include some kind of derogatory or insulting term in the title of their theories.

'Conspiracy Nuts'
'Crazy Truthers'
'Conspiracy Idiots'

and on...
and on...


I'm actually getting a little bored of it, if you have to include these claims as part of your argument, then I'm sorry you cannot be taken seriously and your arguments lack credibility.

Petty mind games are the sign of a desperate foe....I beleive we have them on the ropes, one day the knock down blow will come!






[edit on 17-4-2010 by kiwifoot]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
It's clear to me you don't realize at all what you're posting. The firefighters did not predict WTC7 was going to globally collapse in a free-fall to the ground.


So then explain to everybody why they evacuated a collapse zone around 7.


Give it up Joey. I'm done with this complete unwillingness to think about what I'm posting.

This is what WTC7 did:




Does calling the building "unsafe" predict this? No.

Does evacuating people from around the building imply physics are going to play out like this? No.

No one said, "The building is about to free-fall into itself, all four corners of the building going into free-fall within a fraction of a second, into a ~3-story pile of smoldering rubble sitting where the building once stood."

Until you can find me a quote of someone predicting THAT, just shut up and read my posts BEFORE YOU RESPOND TO THEM.



Uh..... I know that you're having trouble with this, but providing a source that you didn't write is NOT your own words.

Sack up.

What was new?


The entire collapse of a building in such a way, allegedly as a result of fire, is what is new. And this is coming from the people who wrote the technical report as well, so save your CANARDS (must be the only word you understand
) about debris and oil fires and all the rest, because not even NIST agrees with you. If you think there are examples of other skyscrapers collapsing like WTC7, from the same causes as WTC7, then I would love to see you post them.


I'm done with this conversation as I know from personal experience it could go on for 20 pages. Have fun asking more irrelevant questions that do nothing to debunk what I have posted.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ancientfuturist
Nice try, Layscience.net ....

What you see in photo 1 is from the RQ-4 Global Hawk.

Here are two more related photos:









LOOOOOOOOOOOOL. What? How do those even look anything alike to you?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Would you like to explain how the collapse looks like a controlled demo?


No, I wouldn't like to. Why? Because I honestly do not believe you are actually going to seriously consider anything I post.

But here it is anyway: all four corners of the building dropped simultaneously. It accelerated at the rate of gravity (that alone is CASE CLOSED). It had a convenient "kink" in the middle that kept the amount of mass spilling onto adjacent streets to a minimum, considering the building was much taller than it was wide at the base and could have caused a LOT more destruction if it had leaned more in any other direction. There WERE explosions inside of it, including when it started "collapsing," according to witnesses who were there and on the record. NYPD Craig Bartmer is one. You ignoring these people or making things up about them is not legitimate investigation and is simply your own wishful thinking, lacking any evidence.


We are left with your incredulity


You, a mass of people I frankly have no intellectual respect for out of experience rather than prejudice, are left with the incredulity of a mass of people, including organizations of professional scientists and engineers who have the same questions I do. I am content with you simply thinking we are all stupid. Do you understand that? I am content with that.

Before you put your burdens of proof on me remember that we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place if hundreds of thousands of people such as myself did not have so many questions about the investigation that was done. If you want to back up this investigation and answer me on its behalf, that burden is on YOU. If you are simply unwilling to ask the same questions I am, out of apathy or ignorance or what have you, then fine! But I am the one asking questions about the investigations, I do NOT have the responsibility to perform any additional criminal investigation, and if you demand final answers from me you are barking up the wrong tree completely.

If you want to be "skeptical," why are you never skeptical of trillion-dollar war industries, politicians, and federal bureaucracies? Don't even pretend like you are, because I see clearly enough where all of your "skeptical" energy is being (mis)directed. I am not the investigator you are looking for.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
The best evidence I have to support my views is this; do you REALLY think if the government set this all up they would leave it so muddy? I mean here you cats are arguing day in and day out over blurry pictures and videos but just think about this. If the big bad government REALLY wanted to lie to you, dont you think they would do a better job than this? A faked 911 is as laughable as a faked moon landing. As if Russia would let us get away with lying!


[edit on 17-4-2010 by A-E-I-Owned-You]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by A-E-I-Owned-You
The best evidence I have to support my views is this; do you REALLY think if the government set this all up they would leave it so muddy?


It must not have been too damned "muddy" huh? Or are you saying you really believe there is room for you to personally doubt what you have been told by the government and media?


I mean here you cats are arguing day in and day out over blurry pictures and videos


What "blurry pictures and videos" are we arguing about?


A faked 911 is as laughable as a faked moon landing. As if Russia would let us get away with lying!


The web between the US and Russia, and China and all other industrialized, militarized nations, is more tangled than you apparently are aware of. I could offer examples of US and Soviet spies even sharing intelligence and cooperating during the "Cold War" to a common purpose (now what kind of sense does that make, if there were mortal enemies like the politicians kept telling you?), but unless you understand what they have to gain from this there would be no point. Have you ever read the book 1984? War makes money. The biggest money, outside of banking. Perpetual war makes perpetual money. There is something to be had on both sides of this "conflict," and you may have already guessed it wasn't mutual annihilation.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join