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: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 





Then can you please answer why Demo Companies spend weeks, even months and millions of dollars setting up smaller buildings for demolition? The way you explain it, one would think Building 7 was constructed from a house of cards.


No I have not confused myself at all, your just not able to get your conspiracy infused mind around common sense explanations thats all.

You could have answered you own question if you had the smarts to look it up, but I understand why you do not so allow me to explain it to you:

Companys who implode buildings that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars (not always millions as you falsely claim) often do so because of the consideration of keeping the building and debris from falling onto and into other buildings. It takes skill and practice to accomplish that. In an emergency a professional demolition team can install then bring a building up to 80 stories down to the ground in 2 days or less (Empire Demolitions Company, NYC) And that proves the false claim that "it would takes weeks or months" to bring it down is simply Game Boy childish theory garbage by teeny bops and other who wish to keep the conspiracy fire a flame because they are not able to understand common sense, evidence and logic and would rather or, find it easier to resort to Mel Gibson minded conspiracy theories.

Without a doubt there are aspects to 911 that are not answered and possibly surrounded within a conspiracy such as flight 93. But to simply allow one's self to become influxed in everything "conspiracy" about the subject is simply immature and not within reason of intelligent people.

[edit on 6/10/2010 by mikelee]




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
"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.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


However, if you actually have a source then why not post it for your own benefit as well credability. Many of these conspiracy people on ATS resist sourcing because they can't actually prove their conpsiracy claims. So by refusing to cite a source, they get by with theorys based on assumption instead of evidence.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
"However, if you actually have a source then why not post it for your own benefit as well credability."

For you own credibility, how about specifying what you would like to see a source for? I'm not the one making preposterous statements. Nice to see you learned how to spell.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Simple insults from a simple mind. Nice truther representation there.

Perhaps one of the reasons people find the likes of you less than serious. Source: Your post

[edit on 6/10/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdmiralX
reply to post by iamcpc
 


find somebody not tied to criminals involved who will argue science. If you are doing research, you would look it up, and not take it so personally.


Two seperate people not involved who will argue science:

911myths.com...

www.journalof911studies.com...

I am doing research. I can't find ANY expert or source other than you and bloggers who say the WTC towers collapsed at free fall speed.

So again stop making things up! You make it difficult for people who are looking for the truth to find it!

Or be a nice guy and tell me where you found out that the WTC towers collapsed at free fall speed.

I'm sorry but when people either make stuff up or outright LIE about the MURDER of 3000 innocent civillians I don't like it.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Simple insults from a simple mind.

The only insult I see here is YOU calling me a "simple mind".

"Nice truther representation there."

Contrary to what your mind makes you want to believe, I do not represent truthers. Thanks for being predictable and generalizing.

"Perhaps one of the reasons people find the likes of you less than serious."

I can only hope and pray the people you speak for and represent find me less than serious.

"Source: Your post"

Is this a sentence which is supposed to make sense? Since you've polished up your spelling, it may be time to start working on your sentence structure.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Its funny this thread popped up for me tonite.

I haven't seen anything on 911 lately. Earlier today I came across the film '9/11 the ripple effect'. Hadn't seen this one before. Maybe most people have. Thought it was excellent.

If you haven't watched I would highly recommend a viewing.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnySeagull
 


That is a good video, some I agree with and some points I do not. But it IS a good video for sure



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy

Originally posted by iamcpc


You forgot to add "ignore those who disagree."

To believe any theory, such as your signature would suggest that you support the theory that 9/11 was an inside job, means that you have to chose to only believe those that present evidence that support your theory and ignore all those who refute your theory or support an alternate theory. How do you do that? How do you ignore the people that have presented evidence to refute your theory? How do you ignore the people who support alternate theories?

I wish I could. This whole 9/11 disaster would be so much easier for me and I would not have to spend over 20 hours a week researching all the stuff that people have flat out made up about what happened on that day.


since your spending so much time debunking 9/11 could you maybe quickly help me with the few points I mentioned? I agree many people who say 911 is a inside job are crazy but only because their prolly scared out of their minds of the implecations that could mean, I just have my doubts so can you answer any of them?


If WTC was demolished I believe that it would have been prepped for demolition far in advance. It's very difficult to understand what happend to WTC 7 because the side that was "damaged" was covered in smoke.

So a team of professors at MIT can't look at the before and after picture. They can't determine the mass of whatever hit the WTC tower 7 (like they can determine the mass and speed of the airplanes that hit the twin towers).

That is just my 100% un-expert opinion.

Oh and the team of MIT professors and their independant investigation about the collapse of the WTC twin towers can be found here:

web.mit.edu...



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   


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


So you think that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff and teams of professors at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and Perdue are all "kooks" who "obviously do not possess any common sense"??????


You seriously believe that? I mean I don't even know for sure that the twin towers collapsed from airplanes and fire. But you seriously think all those people are kooks with no common sense???? wow. It's actually pretty funny.




SOURCES CITED HERE:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




Like when impress me thinks that 911blogger.com is a credible source

while thinking that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff and teams of professors at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and Perdue are a all not credible




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Here is how buildings are demolished in the real world. Looks like this process is a tad more involved than just throwing a few remote charges in the building, pressing a button and having it go kaboom!

science.howstuffworks.com...
science.howstuffworks.com...
science.howstuffworks.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Here is how buildings are demolished in the real world. Looks like this process is a tad more involved than just throwing a few remote charges in the building, pressing a button and having it go kaboom!

science.howstuffworks.com...
science.howstuffworks.com...
science.howstuffworks.com...


Excellent source! It presents strong evidence that the WTC towers were not demolished with explosives! It even cites Brent Blanchard (implosion expert) as a source!

Brent Blanchard and some members of his staff at protec wrote a paper about the WTC collapses! You can read it here:

www.implosionworld.com...



[edit on 10-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
"The NIST Report is flawed but not to any degree that it allows for a total assumption that the Towers were brought to the ground by explosives. It was put together in a rush to a conclusion is now my opinion and well know very well how many mistakes can happen when things are rushed like that."

The NIST report was rushed? Oh really? Let's take a look at what NIST says about its "rushed report":

"The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event.

With the release of the final WTC 7 report (on November 2008), NIST has completed its federal building and fire safety investigation of the WTC disaster that began in August 2002. A three-year study of the collapses of the WTC towers (WTC 1 and 2) was completed in October 2005"

www.nist.gov...

To summarize, the two NIST reports in total took over six years to complete. It was nice of them to "rush". I wonder how much time it would have taken them if they did not "rush" their reports?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
"I have observed several days worth of videos of controlled demolitions as well attended an actual one in person. After speaking with one the controllers at the site I'm convinced that the WTC Towers were not caused to fall by explosives."

Hey OP, just curious. Did the setup of that controlled demolition which you attended in person involve placing a few remote charges at strategic points to cause a symmetric near free fall speed collapse? If a massive steel framed 47 story skyscraper can be taken down like this, anything smaller must have been a piece cake. How long did the preparation take - a few minutes?

Or did the demolition involve setting off a couple of oxygen starved fires, waiting an hour and watching the building collapse? It's amazing what you can do with a matchbook. Who knew?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Source? How about some more demolition sources? Let's check out what this New Jersey Demolition Company has to say about what it takes to demolish a structure

www.dallascontracting.com...

I have an idea. Why don't you contact them and ask them if a 47 story steel framed building can be wired/prepped with charges and demolished in seven hours?

Here is how you can contact them

www.dallascontracting.com...

I'd gladly contact them and ask them, however, I am afraid they would report me for being mentally ill for asking such a question.

And what was that you were saying about Simple Minds? Yeah, I'm very familiar with Simple Minds, a great rock band from Scotland. This song is dedicated to you OP - enjoy!




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 
As I recall NIST did not even want to deal with anything remotely related to 911 in the first place.It took a presidental order for them to even begin with a prelim report.NIST like every other part of the government just wants this to go away and it has not.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by gamma 49
 


No, I'm not. But one could very well state the same about youself as well. But I won't.

The evidence supports what many of the conspiracys simply do not. The majority of conspiracy theorys of 911 are rooted in nothing more than opinions, deceptions & half truths and while an opinion is neither right nor wrong, an opinion cannot hold it's water in a courtroom. So why should it hold any here?


My questions:

1) A very little hole and very big plane - did the plane that hit the Pentagon go into the very same hole that evaporated 93? And where is the experiment that evaporates metal in order for this theory to float? - evidence please.

2) Which company went into WW7 and set the bombs for their special implosion? They had from 10am until 5pm. Who did the rush job? Yes, it is as simple as that. You would have seen them running around setting the bombs and the media would have been allowed by FCC to film it for their proof. Produce the evidence.

3) www.youtube.com... More video for you to examine. Seven is exploding is an excerpt from an Italian documentary on global terrorism called " Inganno Globale" Careful, they use big words. LOL There is also the footage w/sound where you hear all the boom boom booms. Oh and funny you don't seem to think that on-scene witnesses have a clue what happened to them. Most did and told what they saw only to die later and people around them are terrified to even tell how they died. www.youtube.com...

I'm gonna inject a little story here just for you: My apt bldg was about to be run over by developers for a condo. Oh they offered all types of money that I knew they would never pay. First they give you a chart and choice - a condo or money for you to move out of the apt. I found out later the same developers tossed out a friend of mine from his place. They offered him $350 to move - even though at first on the paper like the one I got, it said the standard offer was $10k. They told him they had to deduct for apt damages. So I brought this up at one of the meetings siting a neighbor who lives in our basement and the foundation leak problems (water bugs too, ugh) he was having. This guy told me to shut up because I was a woman and I don't know what a foundation is. He sited that he was a government contractor so he could make that observation. What did he do for the govt I asked? He was a financial analyst. Hmmm finances and foundations. Yeah guess he had me cuz I was only contracted to do procurements.
Moral: If you buy something someone says w/o a full check then caveat emptor bro!

Its called proof and name calling and cleaver quips are not evidence. You threw out evidence for what? Please tell us.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
What do you say to this?

Thanks.


What if the OP is wrong about 7 being demolished?

That would remove the conflict, right?


Ummm? How? My point is if it was, than how could it have been rigged in less than two hours while it was on fire, without any firefighters or policemen seeing it being done? Does that seem plausible to you? If not, than how can you stand where you do?


If it wasn't cd, then:

1- it wasn't wired in 2 hrs
2- it wasn't wired beforehand either
3- there wouldn't have been anything for the pd or ff's to see


It removes all conflicts that you see.




top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join