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: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
mikelee,

Aside from the demolitions, which can get people off from asking the right questions...
Do you not find it odd that the war in Afghanistan was already planned prior to 9/11 and that the Gov used 9/11 to push an agenda that was already planned right down to the month of attack? For me that is a little too coincidental.

As for the Pentagon, I find it hard to swallow that the cameras they had working there were not that much better (actually worse) then the ones they use at ATM machines all over the country. I really do believe that they are hiding something, that there is good footage and there is a reason they are hiding it.




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Interestingly you admit that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, for me that is the whole entry point to the whole 9/11 conspiracy discussion. I of course bought into the government story, hook line and sinker UNTIL I found out about WTC7, and that was about 4 years after 9/11. Then I was "Hold on, if WTC7 was wired to go then......."
At the very least they knew what was coming, and they chose not to stop it but use it as allowable false flag.

Somebody who was old enough to be an around when Pearl Harbor was bombed once told me, that somebody high up knew it was coming too, that's why all the Aircraft Carriers were moved out of port, before it was bombed. They could lose aircraft & battleships but not the carriers, they really were going to need those.

So the same thing goes for 9/11, anyway you try to spin it, some part of the government abused this event, and they are very guilty.

Here is a question for you to ponder.

Why was ONLY WTC7 wired up to go down and not the other buildings in the complex that were obviously going to be destroyed, by the falling WTC 1&2?



[edit on 10-6-2010 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Architects, scientists, and my two "Physics Student of the Year" awards say you are full of it, and a disinfo agent. I suppose you think Oswald did JFK himself huh? You think Specter and the other liars (some admitted it later on) were honest, fluoride is good for you, so is mercury? Keep drinking your coolaid if it makes you feel better, but 911 was an inside job, it was a controlled demolition.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


well there's a difference between airport control towers and towers that are meant for business and apartments.

you are thick fella for information sink to, aren't ya? i respect that, not everything is t believed. but when then information is factual, quite credible and citable into decent sources, refusing to recognize the facts might appear to be... hmm, rigidity of mind - carefully said.

remember this? a b-25 bomber crashed into the empire state building - i've bet you (and the rest of you) have seen it. skycrapers can actually last large plane crashing to them - buildings with offices and apartments need to endure that, otherwise no one would want to live or do business in them; and most likely no one would give insurance to them.

i am not saying that b-25 crash to empire state building is same as 767 crash on wtc, all i am saying that the buildings (skycrapers) have to be designed keeping plane collision in mind.

and what comes to the collapse of wtc 1 and 2, my eyes and knowledge of physics tells me that the lower floors below the collapsing levels should've amounted to resistance, and therefore the crash itself should've last longer; my simple mind cannot figure howcome did they fall so fast, if the resistance below were not somehow weakened. i've read nist report, popular mechanics articles and other "official" explanation, they just don't sink in. maybe i have rigid mind as well.


[edit on 10-6-2010 by Geemor]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Geemor
reply to post by butcherguy
 


well there's a difference between airport control towers and towers that are meant for business and apartments.

you are thick fella for information sink to, aren't ya? i respect that, not everything is t believed. but when then information is factual, quite credible and citable into decent sources, refusing to recognize the facts might appear to be... hmm, rigidity of mind - carefully said.

remember this? a b-25 bomber crashed into the empire state building - i've bet you (and the rest of you) have seen it. skycrapers can actually last large plane crashing to them - buildings with offices and apartments need to endure that, otherwise no one would want to live or do business in them; and most likely no one would give insurance to them.

i am not saying that b-25 crash to empire state building is same as 767 crash on wtc, all i am saying that the buildings (skycrapers) have to be designed keeping plane collision in mind.

and what comes to the collapse of wtc 1 and 2, my eyes and knowledge of physics tells me that the lower floors below the collapsing levels should've amounted to resistance, and therefore the crash itself should've last longer; my simple mind cannot figure howcome did they fall so fast, if the resistance below were not somehow weakened. i've read nist report, popular mechanics articles and other "official" explanation, they just don't sink in. maybe i have rigid mind as well.


[edit on 10-6-2010 by Geemor]


This thread starter is a mis/dis info agent. Anyone who has ever taken any Physics knows what free fall is. Also, architects, engineers, and demolitions experts who do it for a living (not just watching vids to say that makes them credible) ALL AGREE IT WAS CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Cannot be set up in 5 minutes, this was planned in advance, staged, and include chemists in there also and people who specialize in working with metals. INSIDE JOB. You lose thread starter, and it makes me wonder how many people are in on it to add "credibility" for agreeing or entertaining your rubbish.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by AdmiralX
 



Originally posted by AdmiralX
Also, architects, engineers, and demolitions experts who do it for a living (not just watching vids to say that makes them credible) ALL AGREE IT WAS CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.


ok. forgive me but i don't want to counter your opinions, but i merely make the remark that above kind of language is a perfect example of exagerration. if all of them (architects, engineers and demolition experts) would agree, then nist report, nor popular mechanics article and many many other "official" and even unofficial reports, wouldn't exist.

you say that op has an agenda, but alas, so do you - your language reveals your motifs, but i bet you don't mind. neither do i. just wanted to reflect it back to you in case you are not aware it; although i think you are.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
I'd like to reiterate a basic failure of logic in your opening piece. You claim to believe that Building 7 was demolished with explosives for public safety because it was damaged.

It takes weeks, if not months of planning and outfitting a skyscraper with explosives. It's apparently no longer disputed even by Fox News that Larry Silverstein was indeed referring to controlled demolition when he said "pull it"


www.foxnews.com...
Despite the heavy propaganda in this piece, one gem stands out -

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.


Because it takes several weeks to properly set up explosives for a CD, the above information only makes sense if WTC7 had been outfitted with explosives several weeks in advance.

The implications are vast. For one thing, it corroborates the peer-reviewed paper by Niels Harrit, which found undetonated thermitic material in WTC dust. That paper has never been refuted in a peer-reviewed journal. If it were flawed, there would be refutations in peer-reviewed journals at least somewhere. So far it has stood strong.

And secondly, it of course implies that the other two buildings had explosives in them as well.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   
i still think that the planes were holograms... there is a good chance



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by mikelee
I do admit though perhaps I'm totally wrong about flight 93 being shot down, maybe it did vanish in a hole and there was just too much energy released at the impact point for the average person to understand and therefore everything in it just vaporized. Or maybe thats just too much of a fantasy to believe and we are all right to not believe it. After all we have never seen the landing gear of flight 93 in any confirmed government photos and the experts all agree that if anything, those should have survived the impact.


If flight 93 was really shot down and the gov't is covering it up, then why did representatives from NORAD come out and admit to the 9/11 commission they were hunting flight 93 with a shootdown order from the president, and they admitted they would have shot it down if they had found it?



Forgive me if someone posted this already.

I always hear this response to the f93 shoot down theory.."Well why wouldn't the military just admit to it when they were already authorized" and I think the answer to that question is very simple. Because they brought it down while the passengers were in the process or possibly right as or after they took the cockpit back.

This was known almost instantly or would of been known well before the military wouldn't of had the chance to begin a complete cover up of the fact, especially if they downed the plane by something other than a rocket.

Would the military really come out and admit to downing the aircraft after the only ounce of hope to come out of the terrible day was the fact that some normal citizens fought back. They would never mess that up with a admission about how they took down the plane just as the passengers may have been able to land themselves and live. It would have been a nightmare for the military, the stigma of having to kill our own people to save the capital was bad enough let alone it being known that we might or did kill them all for no reason.

Note: This is a hypothetical counter argument to GOdaves argument that there's no reason why the military wouldn't admit to a shoot down(when there is).



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 


Star to ya. Very well stated



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   
I don't know where you managed to study pictures of sky scrapers just failing down without using demolitions charges to draw this conclusion from.

Was the thermite found at the crime scene planted by UFO's and had all the eye withnesses that reported bombs going off been brain washed by a mind experiment and what about the side blasts, molton metal, lift door being blown off dispite sky floors so none of the lifts went from top to bottom.

These are just a few of 'What about' and i've not even started to follow the money and that all leads back to the zionists.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   
So after further investigation, he now knows less than he did before.
I guess that's why kids need to go to school in he first place.
You know what happens to the dropouts.

Their brains free fall to the ground. LOL



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 





I'd like to reiterate a basic failure of logic in your opening piece. You claim to believe that Building 7 was demolished with explosives for public safety because it was damaged. It takes weeks, if not months of planning and outfitting a skyscraper with explosives. It's apparently no longer disputed even by Fox News that Larry Silverstein was indeed referring to controlled demolition when he said "pull it"


I realize that it would take some time to wire up a building however look at it's construction first before playing Devil's Advocate games with me. The building was no where the size of the Towers and would actually only require destruction of the main support columns, of which there are only a few precise positions that would need to be blown. I don't care what Silverstien said or says. I know he is a piece of crap but that fact does not fit within anything I have stated, in my own words. Many have though taken it out of context and interjected superlatives & supposition to attempt to make your point. All is needed here is to understand within a more common sense based mentality, how it might have been done rather than tossing the same old tired theorys around yet never provide the concrete proof of anything to back them. Any theory is only as good as the evidence that backs it up. Sure, some very few aspects have been "debunked" or whatever the word-o-da-day happens to be, but all of those that have, also fit within at least two other different plausibilitys. Making them nothing more than speculation based theorys. In other words, a theory without evidential support & documentation.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by realanswers
 


Insults do not add to your intelligence. They diminish it.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 


Speculation without concrete evidence to back it. Won't hold up in court and it don't here either.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by jericanman
 


No rudeness taken.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


So you have been a "truther" all along only to change your mind after this:




After speaking with one the controllers at the site I'm convinced that the WTC Towers were not caused to fall by explosives. However with this stated, I do believe that WTC 7 was caused in part, by demolitions as it was beyond repair obviously and the use of demolitions only aided in brining it down for the safety of the public and others on site that day. WTC 7 was brought down because it had to be. No other reason in my mind exists.


You don't see a problem with the fact that WTC 7 came down and was apperently wired with explosives beforehand?

Why was it wired beforehand, and how is that not a conspiracy?

You changed your mind about the Twin Towers being demoliished, but you still think WTC 7 was?

You first believed the Twin Towers were demolished, but now you changed your mind and think they just collapsed?

I assume that directly after 911, you believed the OS, then you believed the conspiracy theory, and now you believe part of the OS, and part of the conspiracy theory.

You seem confused, they can't both be right, as it creates a paradox.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


sorry man color me skeptic on these :"pictures" that we can't see that would be the smoking gun of 100 percent proof of the pentagon being hit. for all we know you are a disinfo agent.

I agree the "No Planers" are out to lunch planes hit the building, we all saw it.

but not for one second, can I believe the government has been honest. when payne stewarts plane went off course, within 10 minutes f16's were on his ass.....BEFORE 9/11!

these planes go off course for how long and theres not one f16 in sight? thats either ineptitude or something fishy in my book

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Hulk Hogan]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Geemor
reply to post by AdmiralX
 



Originally posted by AdmiralX
Also, architects, engineers, and demolitions experts who do it for a living (not just watching vids to say that makes them credible) ALL AGREE IT WAS CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.


ok. forgive me but i don't want to counter your opinions, but i merely make the remark that above kind of language is a perfect example of exagerration. if all of them (architects, engineers and demolition experts) would agree, then nist report, nor popular mechanics article and many many other "official" and even unofficial reports, wouldn't exist.

you say that op has an agenda, but alas, so do you - your language reveals your motifs, but i bet you don't mind. neither do i. just wanted to reflect it back to you in case you are not aware it; although i think you are.
Thanks for the thick reference earlier. You may notice that I try not to disparage other peoples intelligence.

The reason for the reference to a control tower at an airport was specifically because of your post that said one of the reasons that the WTC Twin towers were 'designed' to handle a plane crash, was BECAUSE they were located near airports. Well maybe the control tower of an airport OUGHT to fall into that category, eh?

Now, I am very impressed with your above post that I quoted, because you seem to be able to see the middle ground in this debate. I gave you a star because that is lacking both ways in this debate.

Now back to the Twin Towers and airplanes,

I would love to see where the full scale testing was done during the design phase of those towers. By full scale testing, I mean flying a fully fueled jetliner into the building as they wanted it to be built.

If they never did any such testing, how could they possibly say with confidence that the buildings were designed to handle a crash?

You may remember years ago that a test was done with an actual jetliner crashing into ground-mounted pylons on a runway. The purpose of the test was to see if the newly designed fuel would work as anticipated and NOT burst into flames when the crash occurred.

Suffice it to say that the plane became a huge fireball at the very beginning of the crash phase of the test. The engineers were red-faced to say the least.

You really think I am being thick with this?

Take a look at the pics here:



That is how the theory of 'non-flammable fuel' worked out for the engineers!


[edit on 10-6-2010 by butcherguy]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join