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.

 

there is know OS or truthers ..

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pockets
It's called compartmentalization, not everyone needs to know the plan for it to work


Compartmentalized or not, these secret gov't ninjas of yours would still need to be thoroughly as stupid as a bag of hammers not to understand that sneaking in and planting secret controlled demolitions in an occupied building is going to get a hell of a lot of people killed.




posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




these secret gov't ninjas of yours

They are not my ninjas...Who said anything about ninjas? Not me thats for sure

You just accused someone of making stuff up off the top of there heads


it's another thing entirely to be making up crap off the top of your head


and then in your next post do it your self



[edit on 30-8-2010 by Pockets]



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

why as people do we need such fantasy that is my question???


Why do people need to believe that an airliner weighing less than 200 tons can TOTALLY destroy a skyscraper weighing more than 400,000 tons in less than 2 hours? And then don't expect to be told the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level. How does mass have to be distributed in a tall narrow man made structure.



So what does that widening toward the base of the CN Tower say about how steel had to be distributed on the WTC? But the WTC did not get narrow toward the top so it had more of a problem with wind load and therefore required even greater strength toward the base.

But we don't have a single official source that has provided that data in NINE YEARS.

edschultz.invisionzone.com...

psik



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Actually its the debunkers who wearing their tinfoil hat present "special science" and scream BELIEVE !!! Things like the no plane theory have actually been debunked by the people who do believe more than a plane and jetfuel brought down the buildings, not by those who call themselves debunkers.

You tell us all those people from below the impact point at least some of them, came from a building where the steelframe was heated up to 600 degrees, enough to weaken it. They dont look like they walked through fire. A steeleframe heated up to the point it loses most of its strentgh and does not start a fire on a floor or 2? Really?

You hold up a picture with a smudge on it and try to sell it for an UFO and expect us to believe in Reptillians because of something somebody posted on the internet. Well maybe wearing the tinfoil hat like you do helps with believing, but I dont have any shoes to go with it.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



You tell us all those people from below the impact point at least some of them, came from a building where the steelframe was heated up to 600 degrees, enough to weaken it. They dont look like they walked through fire. A steeleframe heated up to the point it loses most of its strentgh and does not start a fire on a floor or 2? Really?

You hold up a picture with a smudge on it and try to sell it for an UFO and expect us to believe in Reptillians because of something somebody posted on the internet.


Why would the people need to look like they walked through a fire , if they came from below the point of impact ? Fire tends to spread upward in a building , not downward , so you are not making any sense with that statement .

As for starting " a fire on a floor or 2 " , you can't be serious ? You are either very new to this 9/11 thing , or you are blind , or you are in denial , or you are deliberately attempting to spread disinformation . Which is it ?

There are thousands of video and still-images that show fires on at least "a floor or 2" .

Type 9/11 into the search-function if you want to see fires . I really can't believe you even said that .

AND , I don't recall having ever seen a "debunker" trying to push UFO's or Reptillians so , STOP LYING .



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Cassius666
 



You tell us all those people from below the impact point at least some of them, came from a building where the steelframe was heated up to 600 degrees, enough to weaken it. They dont look like they walked through fire. A steeleframe heated up to the point it loses most of its strentgh and does not start a fire on a floor or 2? Really?

You hold up a picture with a smudge on it and try to sell it for an UFO and expect us to believe in Reptillians because of something somebody posted on the internet.


Why would the people need to look like they walked through a fire , if they came from below the point of impact ? Fire tends to spread upward in a building , not downward , so you are not making any sense with that statement .

As for starting " a fire on a floor or 2 " , you can't be serious ? You are either very new to this 9/11 thing , or you are blind , or you are in denial , or you are deliberately attempting to spread disinformation . Which is it ?

There are thousands of video and still-images that show fires on at least "a floor or 2" .

Type 9/11 into the search-function if you want to see fires . I really can't believe you even said that .

AND , I don't recall having ever seen a "debunker" trying to push UFO's or Reptillians so , STOP LYING .


Well trying to sell the official report and pushing shapeshifting Reptillians is the same thing and it takes the same kind of tinfoil hat wearing person. If the tinfoil hat fits, wear it.

I only saw fires pretty much around the impact point, caused by the airplane itself, not steele heating up. The official report tries to tell us, that the jetfuel and the fires heated the steele enough to weaken it, so to around 600-800 degrees. The steele was hot enough for the building to collapse, but not hot enough to set all of the building ablaze and reduce anyone who did not make it out in time to ash? Really? Are you serious? Tons and tons and tons of steele burning at 800 degrees and that office chair does not catch fire? People were standing inside the impact point waving and that is steele burning hot enough to lose most of its strucural integrity?

Do you see now, why the official tale is tinfoil hat stuff? And just like the people who believe in the shapeshifting reptillians you can talk all you want to the believers of the OT (official tale) they will just hold up the OT and scream BELIEVE !!!
edit on 17-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Here's a glaring example- Silverstein didn't say *he* "pulled it. He said it was *the NYFD* who "pulled it". In YOUR interpretation of "pull it", are you genuinely saying that the New York Fire Dept. is involved in a secret controlled demolitions conspiracy that killed 343 of their own firefighters? Every time I ask that all you conspiracy people run away from the question the same way vampires run away from sunlight.


Honestly, I ignore all these little bits of "evidence" they bring up, like the semantics of one word.

The day they can provide evidence as to why planes were used when there was supposedly a bomb in the towers, how the government could even plot and execute such a plan flawlessly with no whistleblowers, how they could rig a building with tons of explosives without anyone noticing, and how 9,000 other things could be done despite the official story, then maybe I'd be more convinced.

Instead we have people arguing over grainy Youtube video artifacts, over random noise in audio, and phrases mentioned by out of context audio feeds.

All this despite the actual issues that would make sense of this.

The reverse scientific method applied here is a lot like Christian apologetics. You have the conclusion then you go back to evidence supporting that conclusion. It's ludicrous.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join