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.

 

World Trade Center Documentary

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by AquariusDescending
The FBI was involved with the 1993 bombing, and that's court-documented fact. Just look up the FBI's informant to the alleged terrorist cell, "Emad Salem."

He provided testimony about the FBI trying to set up that "cell" with a fake bomb for a sting operation, and gave them the idea to explode it in the basement of the WTC Towers, but then then somehow or another they got their hands on a real one instead....


I did, and what do I find but yet more lies being circulated by the conspiracy mongers to get people all paranoid over shadows. The FBI was intending to give them a fake bomb in order to catch them in the act, but a dimwit FBI official pulled the plug on the operation becuase he didn't take Emad Salem's report of a bombing attempt seriously. This "FBI involvement" as the poster manipulated it into is really a sting operation that the FBI incompetence fudged up.

So the question is, if there's so much "blatant evidence" of a conspiracy then why to the conspiracy mongers need to resort to manufacturing their own like this?


Why would you call him a dimwitt if he wasn't involved?

And by the way, he recorded the phone calls. Its a fact they were involved. You can argue the level of their involvement all you want but to deny it is to take ignorance to a new level.




posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Why would you call him a dimwitt if he wasn't involved?


Becuase he stepped in and cancelled an operation that would've stopped the first bomb attack back in 1993, He went with his own personal instincts that this Salam guy was a phony, overriding the instincts of Salam's handlers that told them he was legitimately in contact with a group of bombers. That makes him a dimwit in my book.


And by the way, he recorded the phone calls. Its a fact they were involved. You can argue the level of their involvement all you want but to deny it is to take ignorance to a new level.


LIAR. I never said the "FBI wasn't involved", that misrepresentation is coming entirely from you. I know full well they were involved- they were conducting a sting operation to hunt down and catch a group of bombers before they could cause any mischief.

Be honest here- The only reason you're even bringing this thing up is becuase you want to drop innuendo that the FBI staged the 1993 bombing themselves. You know as well as I do you're not griping about FBI incompetence becuase that only proves MY assertion that a gov't that can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans could never pull off the most complex operation in all of recorded human history with the sheer perfection that rivalled a supernatural act. It's as ludicrous as asking Paris Hilton to become celibate.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by AquariusDescending
The FBI was involved with the 1993 bombing, and that's court-documented fact. Just look up the FBI's informant to the alleged terrorist cell, "Emad Salem."

He provided testimony about the FBI trying to set up that "cell" with a fake bomb for a sting operation, and gave them the idea to explode it in the basement of the WTC Towers, but then then somehow or another they got their hands on a real one instead....


I did, and what do I find but yet more lies being circulated by the conspiracy mongers to get people all paranoid over shadows. The FBI was intending to give them a fake bomb in order to catch them in the act, but a dimwit FBI official pulled the plug on the operation becuase he didn't take Emad Salem's report of a bombing attempt seriously. This "FBI involvement" as the poster manipulated it into is really a sting operation that the FBI incompetence fudged up.

So the question is, if there's so much "blatant evidence" of a conspiracy then why to the conspiracy mongers need to resort to manufacturing their own like this?


Then what did who make up? You said "like this" but then went on to agree they were involved. Confirmed its not made up by all 3 of us. So what is it?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Now everyone manners and decorum.

The reason I brought up the 1993 bombing was because it may be partial to the cause of the buildings collapsing as they did. I wasn't assigning blame to anyone over the bombing, but the fact that a bombing took place.

I still assert however that two planes hitting the sides of the buildings wouldn't be sufficient to bring about a total global failure like what happened on that day. Logically the damaged areas would have fallen off from the top, especially seeing as the twin towers were in fact three separate buildings stacked on top one another.

But just because it's illogical to assume that the plane damage was the cause of the total global failure, does not automatically mean that it was some nefarious government plot.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Then what did who make up? You said "like this" but then went on to agree they were involved. Confirmed its not made up by all 3 of us. So what is it?


(sigh) this is why I absolutely and thoroughly despise innuendo dropping. It's an unscrupulous way of conducting a smear campaign and make an outrageous accusation without actually coming out and saying it. Thus, if someone comes along and calls them on it they can invoke plausible deniability and say, "that's not what they said and it's our fault for misinterpreting them".

Take a look at the original statement that started this tangent-

"The FBI was involved with the 1993 bombing, and that's court-documented fact. Just look up the FBI's informant to the alleged terrorist cell, "Emad Salem."

He provided testimony about the FBI trying to set up that "cell" with a fake bomb for a sting operation, and gave them the idea to explode it in the basement of the WTC Towers, but then then somehow or another they got their hands on a real one instead...."


You know as well as I do he wasn't simply commenting on FBI incompetence here. Stating "the FBI was involved" and putting "cell" in quotes as if there was actual doubt it was a cell is a blatant attempt at dropping innuendo and implying the FBI of not just being "involved", but actually being responsible for planting the 1993 bomb. I invite you to show me how my interpretation is incorrect here.

So the question still stands- if there's so much "blatant evidence" of conspiracy, then why do the truthers need to resort to manufacturing innuendo like this? The conspiracy mongers resort to this stunt time after time after time, so it's blatantly obvious that whatever the true motives are for their actions, a sincere desire to learn the truth behind the 9/11 attack ain't it.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Now everyone manners and decorum.

The reason I brought up the 1993 bombing was because it may be partial to the cause of the buildings collapsing as they did. I wasn't assigning blame to anyone over the bombing, but the fact that a bombing took place.

I still assert however that two planes hitting the sides of the buildings wouldn't be sufficient to bring about a total global failure like what happened on that day. Logically the damaged areas would have fallen off from the top, especially seeing as the twin towers were in fact three separate buildings stacked on top one another.

But just because it's illogical to assume that the plane damage was the cause of the total global failure, does not automatically mean that it was some nefarious government plot.



Thank you for your wise counsel, and I'm giving you a star for being a voice of reason here.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I noticed two things about that show.

1. They hand us that crap about the fuel in "a fully loaded 767" again.

The fuel capacity was 25,000 gallons and it only had 10,000 gallons so it was only 40% loaded.

2. They did not talk about the core or core columns at all. They mention the elevators but just from watching that show people should think that the exterior columns were the only things holding up the building.

I don't buy this crap about the exterior taking the whole windload. The core had to sway with the exterior. The floors had to transfer much of the force from the exterior to the core and the higher than normal skyscraper density of the grid in the core took that force and restored the tower to sway in the wind.

So how did THE CORE get disappeared from this documentary?

The narrator talks about physicists like all physicists agree on this. Where are the physicists demanding to know the steel and concrete on every level. Are physicists supposed to know how to read blue prints.

LOL

psik

[edit on 31-8-2010 by psikeyhackr]



new topics




 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join