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.

 

My beliefs have changed regarding 911

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"Oh, "Source, source."

Hey AdmiralX, don't fall for that source BS from these clowns. These disreputable characters would ask you for a source to prove what your name was, the purpose being to throw you off the track and waste your time.

COMMON SENSE does not need a source. But then again, these kooks who believe the Official Story obviously do not possess any common sense.


I love how the person citing expert sources backed by science is a clown and a disreputable charachter. The person who is either LYING (claiming that the WTC towers fell at free fall speed), or MAKING STUFF UP (claiming that the WTC towers fell at free fall speed), or REFUSING TO SHARE THE TRUTH (refusing to cite a source) about the murder of 3000 innocent people and firemen is a reputable charachter.



The argument of free fall speed is a red herring guys. It was thrown in there to throw you off. The darn thing fell within its own footprint and that's what they want you to forget. Free Fall Speed hypertextbook.com... or Terminal Velocity en.wikipedia.org... is only the measure of zero weight before velocity. Don't see you fussing about the drag metering of the plumes of soot. It is only a fraction of the argument.
Dictionaries please!
Oh and why do rocket scientists laugh at the phrase "well it's not rocket science?" Answer that and you got the answer to your question. HA!

edit to add: Oh and there was this fab swing ride at Kings Dominion in VA that gave great free fall effect. I suggest you try it.
Cheers!

[edit on 10-6-2010 by DaWhiz]




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdmiralX

GIVE ME A SOURCE OF A FIRE ON ONE FLOOR OR CORNER OR ONE FLOOR MAKING AN ENTIRE BUILDING FALL AS WTC DID.


I challenge you to give another example of:

1- a space shuttle being destroyed by foam

2- a space shuttle being destroyed by a faulty o-ring

Guess what? Highly engineered objects rarely fail, unless the unforseen happens that exceeds their design envelope.

Like ramming a plane into them at 500 mph, and then having unfought fires.

Or having an unfought fire in a building with long span floor beams and assymmetric framing that incorporates trusses to bridge over an electrical station, and even though it was built to code, didn't consider the heat effects upon the floor connections.

Find a building that matched those criteria, and you'll have something to be suspicious about.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee

The Firemen on scene stated that the building was going to be brought down,


No, they didn't.

They made an educated guess that it would on its own, due to the unfought fires, and they were right.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Well, what can anyone expect after events like Waco and the Murrah Building blowing up and being covered up quickly. Of course people are never going to trust this govt. ever again and why should they? They want to enslave us. Look up, the writings on the wall.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 



Those representations are for a PLANNED demo. A far cry from what happened in NYC where decisions had to be made then carried out without much planning at all.

Apparentlyu your little clique starred your reply obviously because they to, failed to comprehend that this was not a planned demo where time was to their benefit.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Double post deleted.

[edit on 6/10/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 





They made an educated guess that it would on its own, due to the unfought fires, and they were right.



Interesting incorrect assumption on your part. Wonder why they didn't or were unable to make that very "educated guess" regarding the WTC Towers then?

Sure would have saved a lot of lives don't 'ya thunk?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
Regarding the WTC Towers and after looking at a variety of materials on the internet as well as those I recieved from additional sources I can say that the towers, in my opinion were not imploded by demolitions at all. The examples of free falling towers no longer holds water in my opinion. I have observed several days worth of videos of controlled demolitions as well attended an actual one in person.


You are comparing apples to oranges.

These were not your "run of the mill" average buildings. They were MASSIVE

therefore they were not demolished using conventional demolition techniques.

Therefore they would not look similar to other "controlled demolitions".


The logic is simple really.

Fire could not have caused a total collapse. Fire could not have turned a steel building into a pile of rubble and left a giant smoldering "hot-spot" for days.

Nano-thermite + conventional explosives could have.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by ANOK
 
Were you in the main spaces of the Sara' after the oil fires?

Tell us what that looked like. Just an oil fire.

Edit to add: The steel deck plates melted.

Just an oil fire, there have been some very ugly incidents in the US Navy involving aircraft carriers and aircraft without the use of explosives. When a plane crashes onto the deck of a ship there is a whole lot there to go wrong, like pieces of flaming metal, tires and wheels weighing hundreds of pounds , equipment on the deck(in addition to aircraft already on the deck) and the fuel.

I have been there too and done that. Wasn't an Airedale, but who would want to be? They lose arms and stuff! (even on good days when planes aren't crashing)


Do you have any evidence that the flight deck melted, I've never heard that? I thought the fire was bellow decks in a machinery room?

I doubt the claim, people tried to claim that bridge near San Francisco melted but it turned out the steel was undamaged and re-used to repair the bridge. People like to pick up on these claims and run with them before checking their common sense, or doing some research just because the headline said 'fire melts bridge'. The only thing that melted was the rubber between the joints.

www.examiner.com...

We had many small deck fires as they are common when fuel or oil gets into the catapult tracks but nothing ever melted from it. I helped get some shipmates out of a flare locker that caught fire, now that was a mess, but again nothing melted or even got hot enough to be malleable even though the fire was pretty intense and cleared the whole flight deck (it was in a space just bellow the flight deck near where my squads planes were parked, we were doing maintenance when it happened).

Steel does not easily get hot enough to lose it's shape in a fire, let alone melt. You have to consider the massive size of the WTC columns, could they have got hot enough to fail in an hour? I can say with full confidence that no they couldn't. If ALL the steel was in direct contact with a controlled flame at max temperature then maybe, but as it was most of the steel was not in direct contact with fire, or even anywhere near it, so then you have to consider heat transfer through air, which is not as efficient at heating up things as direct contact is. Then you have to consider open air uncontrolled fire temps, which will never reach their max temp because that can only happen if the heat source is controlled and maintained at it's max.

So one hour is not enough for heat from a carbon fire to transfer to thousands of tons of steel and cause it to fail, period. And for the buildings to have collapsed in the first place then the resistance had to be removed, we know fire didn't do it, so what conclusion can we come to? (and no the plane crash didn't take away the resistance either).

[edit on 6/11/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

Careful, global warming is real, al gore would not lie, the govt. Has no reason to lie. Nothing except divine intervention, exotic weaponry, or controlled demolition makes buildings of that type and size fall that smoothly into their own footprints. The end: 911 was an inside job.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Ask yourself this.... Do you think there is enough evidence to charge Bin ladin for 9/11? If so, PLEASE contact the FBI and give them your evidence b/c they havn't charged him with it yet... That's right... The FBI has YET to charge Bin Ladin for 9/11... Don't believe me? Look up the FBI's Most Wanted web page, and click on Bin Ladin... It states that he is wanted for:

" the connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."
www.fbi.gov...

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI's web page, Rex Tomb of the FBI's public affairs unit is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
www.milligazette.com...

BUT... You're thinking that Osama Bin Laden confessed to the attack, right?! Nope...

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.
archives.cnn.com...

Then you have to ask yourself why Bush and his admin were so against ANY investigation on 9/11.
www.theinsider.org...

With strong public demand, Bush created the 911 Commission and appointed his people to do the investigating BUT..... Even they doubted the official story..
www.oldthinkernews.com...

So, where does this put us?! It leaves us with MORE questions then answers. 9/11 should be reinvestigated due to all the "open ends", and the possible motives behind it... If you're convinced that the official story we were told is right, then you have nothing to hide, and should agree that it needs to be looked into some more.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I never bought into the whole government did it scenario. What I do believe is that someone in government knew 911 was going to happen. Be it some government snitch or pieces of intel. Someone knew and probably could have stopped it if they really wanted to.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
No way does the size and scope of something like 911 could happen without someone growing a conscious. Somebody knew it was going to happen but sat on the information. Or didn't make any sense of the information. It just can't happen like it did without someone in our government knowing about it. 21 people can't keep their mouths shut like that.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 



Those representations are for a PLANNED demo. A far cry from what happened in NYC where decisions had to be made then carried out without much planning at all.

Apparentlyu your little clique starred your reply obviously because they to, failed to comprehend that this was not a planned demo where time was to their benefit.


Let me ask you a question. Do you think they could have put those fires out? If the buildings didn't fall do you think they could have fought those fires and put them out?



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by AdmiralX
 





This thread starter is a mis/dis info agent.


What a prime example of spreading dis-info than that above by that poster. I'm sitting here listening and talking to another HAM Operator in Ireland. Laughing at your sentiments suggesting that I'm such a person.

Go back to your Mom's mini van and resume watching George the Monkey as thats about the mentality contained in your post.


Please stay on topic.

Reminder Link About Insults Policies and 9/11 Posters

[edit on 11-6-2010 by thepixelpusher]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
what about the patented brand of nano thermite found in the debris?
and you seem to be answering most of these replies with insults rather than factual evidence. no doubt you will probably do the same to my reply.

In my opinion there is far too much evidence against the official story.

and as for you being a disinformation agent or whatever, I don't really know but isn't it common for liars in the media and such to react in the same mocking fashion? because they can't respond with a valid argument they choose instead to try and ridicule the person asking questions. it's pretty weak and we've all seen it before.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Truthers are mostly too uneducated to be trolls.


i dunno about that. i was almost saying that i agree, but there are in fact some doctors and other people attending universities in that group. it's hard to make that kind of generalizations when you don't have clear statistics of their education.


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
They are a funny and illogical group.


may be, but they are important for the synthesis. thesis + antithesis = synthesis. dialectics should be carried on for the sake of finding the "truth" even it may seem impossible. if all would believe like "truthers" or "debunkers", either side would end up unemployed; that means you too. so give more respect to the truthers will ya


i hope you don't count me as one though. i am merely observing this funny conversation between the two. i have no opinions.


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Lurkers are the target audience. Anyone sane, that is honestly doing research, will look up what I posted. With a little self schooling, they will find that I'm right in my beliefs.


i'm happy that you think so. it's good for you, helps your self-esteem. unfortunately, many insane (by your category) person then disagrees with you and think that you are merely dis-info agent



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 
The deck plates I was referring to were in the propulsion spaces, definitely not flight deck.

And an hour is more than enough time for a hydrocarbon fire to melt steel.

Notice that I did not say soften, I SAID MELT. I have seen it written so many times that the fires at the WTC could not have caused the steel to soften.

My line of work involves combustion, including everything from solid fuels to methane and hydrogen. No one seems to realize that steel is formed and worked through the use of heat. With the exception of specialty steels, this heat comes from the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels.

I have worked on far too many furnaces to have someone tell me that it is impossible to soften steel using jet fuel, hell you can melt it.

I have seen too many boilers with MELTED steel tubes lying in puddles because there wasn't any water in them while the burners were firing, and those burners were firing a fuel that is far less volatile than jet fuel.

911 arguments are full of these sorts of fallacies.
LIHOP ? That I could be convinced of. Any further than that and it is getting too far out.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
The OP wants us to believe that he once had doubts about the Official Story and has now come to some great awakening that the OS is mostly correct. You know how you can tell that the OP is being shady? Check out his previous insults in this post about truthers and conspiracy theorists. Do you think if he really had doubts about the Official Story at one point, his insults would be identical to your run of the mill dime store Official Story worshippers?

For someone who claims to have an open mind, he is following the usual OS apologist script to perfection (which consists mostly of degrading insults). Is this a new type of disinfo agent - phony semi-truther turned OS rear end kisser? This only goes to show when someone gives himself enough rope, there is only one use for it.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee


Interesting incorrect assumption on your part. Wonder why they didn't or were unable to make that very "educated guess" regarding the WTC Towers then?


Apples and oranges much?

They didn't have time to have their engineers look at it and make an evaluation.

What do you think they do? Walk up to it and immediately make a decision?

That didn't happen with 7.... It took them hours to determine to evacuate the collapse zone.




top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join