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.

 

Iran President is a 9/11 Truther...

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
If you people are worried about Iran's perspective, why didn't you question the people who started the whole 9/11 conspiracy ideology. Who is to say that those individuals didn't share in Iran's perspective, or they were not connected to a government in which gains from such chaos.

Did you people ever question the origins of this movement?

Class dismissed.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Section31]


Are you serious?

EVERY major event in the world's history has a conspiracy attached to it. I'm sure that the 9/11 theories would have started with or without some foreign radio host.

You're on AboveTopSecret.com.




posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
After the proven lies about the gulf of Tonkin and the Kennedy assassination, any one who takes the OS as it is, is suspect at best complicit at worst....
Why do they call them Truthers again....
Oh yeah, 'cause the opposite of a Truther
is a Lier


No torpedos, and bullets do U-Turns....ooooKay

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Let us backtrack for a moment, and think about this with a slightly different approach. During the early morning on September 11, 2001, everyone was going about their business. It was an average fall day, the sun was out, and a light breeze was blowing. Suddenly, the tv and radio were filled with breaking news, and the reports played real-time video of planes flying into buildings. Two hit the Twin Towers, one hit the Pentagon, and one smacked into the dirt. All those clips played over and over and over. We learned about this pretty simple plan, which lead up to a group of hijackers taking over planes.

(1) As you watched all these videos of planes flying into buildings, what was the first thing that came to your mind?

(2) Did you guys immediately see something, which got you to say, "Hey the government was involved?"

(3) What specific piece of information, on and after 9/11/01, got you to believe the government was responsible? Who said it? Where did you find it?

(4) Who started the first 9/11 conspiracy theory, and what makes him or her so important that 'they had to be telling the truth'?

(Specifics Only Please)

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Section31]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFinalTruth14
Are you serious?

EVERY major event in the world's history has a conspiracy attached to it. I'm sure that the 9/11 theories would have started with or without some foreign radio host.

You're on AboveTopSecret.com.

Yes I am serious. Someone at some point had to come up with the first 9/11 theories. It doesn't fall out of the sky. Where did it all start?

I know the answer to this question. Do you?

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Section31]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
So it's like your just giving a heads up then? OK, I can see that. But much of the world outside of America actually thinks the same thing. In fact much of the world laughs at the American collective for not realizing this. The truth of the matter is that Ahmadinejad thinks like the rest of the world.

Truthers don't have to worry about being associated with this man's ideas is what I'm saying. If that ever happens they can just spin it around and announce that Iran's president is in agreement with the rest of the world that exists outside of the United States of Hysteria.

Truthers should remember what I've said here, and no, I don't want credit for it.

It's a perfectly rational defense against this offensive potential juxtaposition.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


Has anyone here realized what we are not told by the MSM about this "Evil" bearded man, Ahmadinejad ? And possibly the basis as to why he mightn't believe the 9/11 Story ?
AND what he shares in common with many "Truthers" for that matter?

The fact of the matter is ....Ahmadinejad is a Civil Engineer, yes, the type of engineer that design structures such as bridges, dams and Buildings.

So in essence, once you understand the Physics required to put a structure up. You certainly understand what is required to bring a structure down.

It would be an interesting statistic to measure.

As to the numerical ratios of those who believe the OS and have no academic background in Physics whatsoever vs those that do not believe the OS and do.

I can almost assure you that it is categorically and overwhelmingly the former.

Remember that this IS ATS.

Where we strive to DENY IGNORANCE.


Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

www.ae911truth.org...




[edit on 8-8-2010 by nh_ee]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I concede that making such a connection was wrong of me, but it does bring to light some very important and problematic issues behind these conspiracies. Majority (not all) of the people who believe in these theories do not know where they originate from. It is similar to believing in the King James without understanding who wrote the book.

Before people start agreeing with some of these 9/11 theories, we should all question: (1) Who started this whole mess? (2) What type of background do they have; thus, do they have an agenda or hatred for the government? (3) What makes their words so important; thus, their theories have to be 100% correct?

After doing the research myself, I know who and why this whole mess started. No, I will not share that information at this moment. Why? Because you guys need to take responsibility for the information you provide; thus, do the research, create a summary, and share 'credible' sources.

I will give you a hint: Two of the people responsible for these theories are from the radio, one is an aviation pilot, and one is from a foreign country. All of them altered the truth by taking elements out of context, so that it would fit into a narrative (conspiracy).

Do you know where these conspiracies started?

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Section31]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


[Raising hand] Ooooohhh! Mr. Kotter!! I think I know!


...one is an aviation pilot, and one is from a foreign country.


...but, I shall wait and give others a chance to answer and earn points.

The pilot's first name starts with the letter "J"...and the 'foreign' person (I won't reveal the gender, just yet) is --- no, won't reveal the country either...but the first name starts with a "T".

Howum I doin'??



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

*kicks the sand*
But, I am having so much fun.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Are there any skyscrapers in Iran?

Are there skyscrapers in Japan and Australia?

This is the absurdity of 9/11. Gravity works the same way all over the planet. Skyscrapers must deal with the same design constraints. 9/11 makes people all over the planet who claim to understand Newtonian physics look ridiculous. Of course it means they must now keep other people from comprehending simple physics.

How could the top crush SIX TIMES its own height with the same basic structure that had to be stronger and heavier all of the way down in less than 18 seconds?

If the physicists now admit that it could not possibly happen then how do they explain not telling us in 2002?

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

psik

[edit on 10-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 



That is exactly why I posted this article. It wanted to get people aware of the possibility that the mainstream media will connect the two. I am certain that it will happen.


I think you're the only going out of his way to connect the two.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You know IIRC Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a PhD in Civil Engineering and even he isn't questioning anything about the violation of the very special Psikeyhackerian physics involved in a building collapsing. Really makes you wonder.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How could the top crush SIX TIMES its own height with the same basic structure that had to be stronger and heavier all of the way down in less than 18 seconds?


The structure was NOT "stronger and heavier all the way down". We've posted that already and I know you've seen it. Each floor was supported entirely by a horizontal brace running from the inner fore to the outer perimeter. No floor contributed to the structural integrity of any other floor, so each floor was exactly equal in strength, weight, and load capacity. The fact of the matter is, the first floor to collapse had been hit with over fifteen times its own weight, and it was beyond it's capacity to withstand.

A single two ounce domino can still knock over three tons of dominoes, so if you keep coming up with math that shows it can't, then it necessarily means that your math is wrong.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You know IIRC Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a PhD in Civil Engineering and even he isn't questioning anything about the violation of the very special Psikeyhackerian physics involved in a building collapsing. Really makes you wonder.


No,I haven't paid the slightest attention to the man.

I KNOW the laws of physics don't give a damn about anybody or their degrees.

I KNOW a lot of people with physics degrees haven't been asking obvious questions.

A lot of people need to make their area of expertise appear complicated to give the impression they are intelligent and that all of the time and money they spent in school was worth it. But not everything in physics is all that complicated.

Grade school kids can build my model and see that it does not collapse.

Let's see you or any PhD physicist build a self supporting model that can collapse from the top down because of the top 15% or less. ROFL

Physics is incapable of caring about words or arguments. But people can believe stupid bullsh!t just because someone with the proper degree tells them and because it is what they prefer to believe.

You are of course free to explain how Psikeyhackrian physics deviates from Newtonian physics. Have you found the weight of a complete floor assembly yet?

Why not?

Didn't all of the people with PhDs in physics need that information? Doesn't REAL PHYSICS require accurate data?

psik



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How could the top crush SIX TIMES its own height with the same basic structure that had to be stronger and heavier all of the way down in less than 18 seconds?


The structure was NOT "stronger and heavier all the way down". We've posted that already and I know you've seen it. Each floor was supported entirely by a horizontal brace running from the inner fore to the outer perimeter. No floor contributed to the structural integrity of any other floor, so each floor was exactly equal in strength, weight, and load capacity. The fact of the matter is, the first floor to collapse had been hit with over fifteen times its own weight, and it was beyond it's capacity to withstand.

A single two ounce domino can still knock over three tons of dominoes, so if you keep coming up with math that shows it can't, then it necessarily means that your math is wrong.


ROFLMAO

You just said EACH FLOOR was suspended between the CORE and the PERIMETER COLUMNS.

So what was the WEIGHT of steel in the core and perimeter? Aren't you admitting that more floors had to be supported by the core the farther down the building? Wouldn't that take more steel? Wouldn't that increase the weight?

Do you come here to advertise your stupidity?

Lon Waters has a web site showing the cross section of the core columns all of the way up the building. Find it and relieve your ignorance.

I presume stupidity is incurable.

psik



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



No,I haven't paid the slightest attention to the man.


I find that hard to believe being that you are almost on the same page and all, but so be it.


I KNOW the laws of physics don't give a damn about anybody or their degrees.


Don't even know if that statement has any real meaning. I think what you are secretly trying to say is "I don't give a damn that smarter people than me have told me that I don't know what I'm talking about".


I KNOW a lot of people with physics degrees haven't been asking obvious questions.


Well, at least obvious to you.


A lot of people need to make their area of expertise appear complicated to give the impression they are intelligent and that all of the time and money they spent in school was worth it. But not everything in physics is all that complicated.


But some things are, and that's were you get sidetracked.


Grade school kids can build my model and see that it does not collapse.


And those same kids will tell you that they have no idea how your washers and paper loops on a stick has any relation to the complex event that happened on 9/11.


Let's see you or any PhD physicist build a self supporting model that can collapse from the top down because of the top 15% or less. ROFL


They did, full scale, it was called the World Trade Center towers.


Physics is incapable of caring about words or arguments.


Well, there's at least one thing you have in common with physics.


But people can believe stupid bullsh!t just because someone with the proper degree tells them and because it is what they prefer to believe.


So, I guess you're kind of finally admitting that you and you alone have this particular interpretation of "Newtonian" physics.


You are of course free to explain how Psikeyhackrian physics deviates from Newtonian physics.


Newtonian = proven.
Psikeyhackrian = imagined.


Have you found the weight of a complete floor assembly yet?
Why not?


Uh, because I am not looking for irrelevant poorly defined trivia?


Didn't all of the people with PhDs in physics need that information?


Apparently not. Or, option "B" - they are all in on it, or option "C" - evreyone with PhD in physics is stupid and you are the only smart one. Which option do you think is mathematically more probable?


Doesn't REAL PHYSICS require accurate data?


Does it? Or does REAL physics not deal with "data"? Do you think Einstein had a lot of "data" as finger tips?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So what was the WEIGHT of steel in the core and perimeter? Aren't you admitting that more floors had to be supported by the core the farther down the building? Wouldn't that take more steel? Wouldn't that increase the weight?


Ah, I get it now. It's been pointed out to you ad nauseum that every report from NIST to FEMA to MIT all said it was the failure of the horizontal floor support braces that instigated the chain reaction of the collapse, which in turn caused everything else to be pulled, twisted, and bent in ghastly angles...



...so to keep your conspiracy stories alive you're required to wallow in these strawman arguments and falsely pretend everyone said the failure was in the core columns. You must know as long as you keep introducing your own make believe investigation results, it necessarily means you aren't disproving the genuine ones.

Dude, did you ever even READ any of the reports or are you simply making up crap off the top of your head as you go along?


Do you come here to advertise your stupidity?


No, I'm here to advertise your unrepentent dishonesty. Do you see any signs of these supposed controlled demolitions, thermite, lasers from outer space, or whatever damned fool thing it is you're pushing out on this steel? Please, point it out to me.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So what was the WEIGHT of steel in the core and perimeter? Aren't you admitting that more floors had to be supported by the core the farther down the building? Wouldn't that take more steel? Wouldn't that increase the weight?


Ah, I get it now. It's been pointed out to you ad nauseum that every report from NIST to FEMA to MIT all said it was the failure of the horizontal floor support braces that instigated the chain reaction of the collapse, which in turn caused everything else to be pulled, twisted, and bent in ghastly angles...

Dude, did you ever even READ any of the reports or are you simply making up crap off the top of your head as you go along?

No, I'm here to advertise your unrepentent dishonesty. Do you see any signs of these supposed controlled demolitions, thermite, lasers from outer space, or whatever damned fool thing it is you're pushing out on this steel? Please, point it out to me.


You say the mass of the WTC doesn't increase toward the bottom but I'm the one that is dishonest? LOL

The NIST makes claims about what started the collapse but they haven't PROVEN ANYTHING. The NIST then does nothing but say that collapse was inevitable. They do not explain how that mass was crushed and accelerated to come down in less than 18 seconds. They never even provided data on the distribution of the steel. In fact they never specify the total for the concrete in the towers.

You just keep claiming that their snow job is relevant.

psik



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 
Does it? Or does REAL physics not deal with "data"? Do you think Einstein had a lot of "data" as finger tips?


He had the data from the Michaelson-Morley and then did a brilliant extrapolation from that.

www.juliantrubin.com...

But was his theory generally accepted before the DATA from the 1919 eclipse was analyzed?

en.wikipedia.org...

psik



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You say the mass of the WTC doesn't increase toward the bottom but I'm the one that is dishonest? LOL


No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that your insistance that it's relevant in any way to the collapse of the WTC is being dishonest. When a support column is bent sideways by the floor brace attached to it, it lost its structural integrity regardless of what kind of mass it has.


The NIST makes claims about what started the collapse but they haven't PROVEN ANYTHING. The NIST then does nothing but say that collapse was inevitable. They do not explain how that mass was crushed and accelerated to come down in less than 18 seconds. They never even provided data on the distribution of the steel. In fact they never specify the total for the concrete in the towers.


The report went over what caused the initial structural failure, not how much concrete was in the building, the distribution of the steel, or how many toilet seats were up vs. how many were down when it collapsed. After that happened, pretty much everyone in the world except for you acknowledges that gravity took over after that.



new topics




 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join