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.

 

WTC Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

page: 15
104
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


LMAO i have done nothing but provide evidence and you have just proved my point because i said that before any gives the crud about being from the bottom in the examples i stated that where the planes hit would be at a point loser than any of those examples......therefore...the tops of the buildings should have toppled.....but NOOOOO who has their fingers in their ears here.....



as for professional opinions...your willing to listen to TPTB professional opinions but your not willing to listen to others professional opinions.

interesting.

and the sad part is when people are not using common sense....and all my replies have given very indepth projections of my opinions so i don't think i am justs going LA LA LA La....but that is your right to think that.

But at the same time i am just supposed to take your word and go ohhhhh your right....but i am not allowed to state my side....interesting...and when i state my side very well outlaid with lots of info i am being the one not listening....interesting yet again.

i have not come to name calling or any personal attacks.....so i think i am debating fairly well.

the aluminium i was talking about is the cladding on the structure...id the fire was as intense as the OS states then it should show signs of melt.

but hey what do i know.

i am just a person whom might have have some helpful knowledge on this particular topic.....just as many others in the 1200 engineers thread.

what do they all know...like i said in there...mybe not everyone of them is absolutely on top of the game....but even if 20 are that is enough to question the OS.

so i just think that many educated people understand the strains and how steel sructures respond under stress and strain....and these building did not behave in a fashion that is acceptable to planes hitting them.




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


So, you tell me that the top should have toppled away and left the rest of the building standing when only a portion of the floors were actually completely failed. The rest of them were still holding on. That's why it collapsed downward.

Your examples only showed buildings toppling over, nothing about damaging part of a building and having the top topple over. The building that burned for a day had such a significantly different structure and was not hit by anything, so naturally it can't be compared.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
yes i am saying that it is a very high probabilty the on least one of the building the top should have toppled due to UNEVEN structural failure.

If a corner of the building were removed it would not come straight down.

just as in WTC7 which was not struck by a plane at all the struture would not have an even failure....the odd of all three occuring in that fashion just is not a real world senario.

steel bends and warps at high temp. Also i am being told i dont read things not by you...but i tend to over read....it is a downfall of mine no pun inteneded.

even If the top down theory as the OS would have us believe the steel frame work would shear and shoot out as it would be like a cage filling with debris. as each floors truss would sag and bend when all the floor support tabs where the floors were bolted to sheared.

i am not talking about gravity here...i am talking about the area of damage caused by the plane and how gravity will act only on the parts where the structure was weakened.

I cannot see how the entire floor space would be comprimised in all circumstances.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
WT7 was hit by rubble, but not a 'plane. The trouble is that it is okay to theorise about WT7, but not about the twin towers. This link is to a PDF file, and is a reasonable paper for anyone to consider, it is not written as for a peer review and I don't know if it has been peer reviewed and is fairly easy to understand.


You can open the PDF online, there is no need to download.


www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

to edit; Copy and paste the URL.



[edit on 7-9-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
yes i am saying that it is a very high probabilty the on least one of the building the top should have toppled due to UNEVEN structural failure.

If a corner of the building were removed it would not come straight down.

just as in WTC7 which was not struck by a plane at all the struture would not have an even failure....the odd of all three occuring in that fashion just is not a real world senario.

steel bends and warps at high temp. Also i am being told i dont read things not by you...but i tend to over read....it is a downfall of mine no pun inteneded.

even If the top down theory as the OS would have us believe the steel frame work would shear and shoot out as it would be like a cage filling with debris. as each floors truss would sag and bend when all the floor support tabs where the floors were bolted to sheared.

i am not talking about gravity here...i am talking about the area of damage caused by the plane and how gravity will act only on the parts where the structure was weakened.

I cannot see how the entire floor space would be comprimised in all circumstances.


See, now I remember seeing a lot of steel beams being shredded out amidst the debris. If that's all it takes to prove, then there you have it?

I'm short on time, but I wanted to put that in.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


you know what you have answered my points exactly....where the strusture weakens...so what i am getting is that you honestly belive that the entire floor space weakened in all three buildings in all the same way where there whole top comes crashing down evenly throughout the entire structure.

but when i say i believe then some areas should have weakened more so than others then that just is not believable.

Interesting....demolitons specialist should take note on this then...cause all you need to do is weaken one or two floors in anygiven steel structure and it will fall stright down.....very veyr believeable.

not only will it do it in 110 floor structures it will also do it in 47 story steel structures.

now in the samples of controlled demolitions i gave partial failure occur...these are controlled demolitions and yet they still fell incorrectly...and they were not even steel structures.

i did read what you had to say and personally you may be a civil Engineer but i will have to agree with many other structural engineers like myself that the odds of three random hits on buildings to fall in an almost controlled demolition style when these are steel structures...when the failures of the structures themselves would be haphazard and would most likely have leaned bucked or swayed...in at least one instance....i will stick with the common sense.

i know your entitled to your opinion...but your a moderator on a conspiracy website that you seem to be only toting the OS yet many others in our trade completely(as i do myself) disagree with how the OS says the planes brought down the buildings.

I would hope that any buildings i have worked on would not come down due to a plane crash.

just as the Engineer who built the twin towers said it should not be brought down by a plane.

also you can state it as embarassing that i have not understood your post....but i think i get the jist of it just fine....as you have stated that you only see it one way and it will be till you move off this mortal coil....so there is no point posting to you is there....even though others in your profession have different viewpoints.

So if at some point there is evidence given to the contrary of your personal belief there is no point showing it to you.

I have not speculated how they came down...i have only speculated how they did not come down.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
you have a completly aluminium plane hitting steal....the plane will tear to shreds.

This is correct and why we have 1200+ architects and engineers that have signed up at AE911T.org.

Anyone that knows how the towers were constructed, and anyone that knows what jetliners are made of, knows damn well that those jetliners would not do significant damage to the towers. And they didn't

Even NIST's original numbers showed that only 15% of the structure in the impact zones was damaged leaving 85% of the structure intact. That is not significant damage.

Once the planes impacted the floors, they would have started tearing apart and there wouldn't have been many significant pieces of aluminum that could've damaged the core columns. I don't think any of the aluminum parts of the planes could've done any damage to the core columns.

But the parts of the jetliners that could damage the core columns are the landing gear and engines. And even those could only do so much damage, which wasn't very much.

Then there's the South Tower. People claim that even though it got hit second, it came down first because it was hit lower and had more weight above the impact zone. That is completely false.

Check out this example:



The second plane missed most of the core compared to the first plane that hit mostly in the center of the first tower. The second tower had less damage to the core and thus less damage structurally.

The reason why the second tower was dropped first is because firefighters were at the impact floors and were getting ready to start extinguish fires. Those in control couldn't have that. The official version could not have been born if fires were extinguished. That's why one of the most massive and largest steel structures in the world came down after only 56 minutes as opposed to other less massive steel-structured highrises that have burned longer and never collapsed.

56 minutes, ladies and gentlemen. No other steel-structured highrise has ever collapsed in history, let alone after burning for hours.

Yet the South Tower collapsed after 56 minutes, just shortly after the radio calls from firefighters that were getting ready to start extinguishing fires. And even when the South Tower had less structural damage than the North Tower.


It is undeniable to those that have done the research that three WTC buildings were brought down with explosives. I have never seen or heard of a fire-induced building collapse that was not only a steel-structured highrise, but exhibited timed BOOM BOOM BOOM's, flashes "going up, down and around" both towers at the lower levels while the towers were collapsing some 60 stories higher, and ejections of dust/debris.

The odds of all of the above happening on the same day are astronomically impossible. Not just improbable, but impossible.

How someone can deliberately ignore all of the signs of controlled demolitions and then try to make up alternate theories on how the buildings collapsed is phenomenally ignorant. Absolutely, unbelievably ignorant.


It's infuriating that we can hear the detonations in video, we can see the ejections in video, we can hear the witnesses tell us they heard the detonations, we can read about the firefighters who saw flashes in both towers. All signs of controlled demolitions and zero signs of fire-induced collapse. Yet people still try to make up ways that the towers could've collapsed.

Ignorance and denial.




reply to post by plube
 

and

reply to post by neformore
 


It amazes me that there are so many architects and engineers that can see and know from their education that those towers could not possibly have collapsed from the impacts and fires.

Then there are some like you, Nef, that swear by your education that the towers were a natural collapse from fire and impact damage. But to believe this "theory", you have to purposely ignore all the signs of controlled demolitions.


Nef, you are correct in saying that no buildings like the towers have ever collapsed before. No steel-structured highrise has ever collapsed before and not after 56 minutes of burning, and not after hours of burning.

I don't understand, I can't comprehend how there can be two schools of thought from people that are supposed to be educated and competent enough to construct our buildings. It's baffling.


Those towers were not even as remotely as weak as some people think they were. They should still be standing today.









[edit on 7-9-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by daddio
Originally posted by Varemia


Wait, wait, wait. Big difference here. That building wasn't hit by anything. No plane to scrape away the fire-resistant protection on the structure.

That's the big thing. The impact of the planes scraped away the protective covering on a lot of the floor, allowing the fire to seriously weaken them.

You've just been debunked.


Are you kidding me? Seriously, scraped away the protective fire coating. OMG I am luaghing so hard, it's hard for me to type.

The point is FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Mandarin Hotel was hot enough over that much time to have melted the steel right? That IS what you people are saying, that the fires melted the steel causing the collapse?

The idiocy is so amazing to me. There is so much evidence that has been presented by so many people it is just unbelieveable right?

Common sense seems to have flown out the window with you debunkers. Get this straight, if there are central columns, and I don't care how many were "cut", which did not happen as a plane is made of aluminum and unable to cut through steel more than 5 times it's own thickness of aluminum, there is no way for the floors to "pancake" with a central support system, this is the way buildings are designed to be strong, do some research on building design and especially the trade centers design.

The documentary "9/11 Eyewitness" is one of the best I have seen in regards to an independent physics lab analyzing the data and video.

You debunkers are so hilarious in your infantile attempts to keep the OS going with ANY credability whatsoever. It was CD, there were multiple detonations, size of explosions and audio are relative to the interior. Most buildings that are purposely demo'd do not have windows or most of the interior intact. What don't you get here, all the surrounding building muffled the sound of the blasts. Common sense anyone? Please.

And hooper, it has been proven time and again that you lack intelligence on this subject so please refrain from making me laugh so hard I almost wet myself.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by daddio]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It amazes me that there are so many architects and engineers that can see and know from their education that those towers could not possibly have collapsed from the impacts and fires.


1200 Architects and Engineers out of how many globally? Tens of thousands.

I can find you 1200 people who believe in the tooth fairy - does that make the rest of us wrong?

I tell you what I am pissed off about though, seriously - its this mistaken belief that I promote one side of the story.

I don't.

I've lost count of how many times I've said no-one knows for sure.

NIST's theory may not be correct.

9/11 Truthers theories may not be correct.

No one knows for sure. Its all theory.



I say it quite simply because its true, and I'm sorry to say that zealotry prevents people from understanding that.

Quite simply, its not possible to have a conversation about 9/11 any more.

No one listens. Its been proved in this thread that people don't read. They stick their fingers in their ears and shout "la la la" while continually restating their own point of view over and over.

9/11 truth? Not possible, because no one wants to discuss it. People just want to dictate and condem anyone who doesn't see it their way.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It amazes me that there are so many architects and engineers that can see and know from their education that those towers could not possibly have collapsed from the impacts and fires.


1200 Architects and Engineers out of how many globally? Tens of thousands.

I can find you 1200 people who believe in the tooth fairy - does that make the rest of us wrong?

I tell you what I am pissed off about though, seriously - its this mistaken belief that I promote one side of the story.

I don't.

I've lost count of how many times I've said no-one knows for sure.

NIST's theory may not be correct.

9/11 Truthers theories may not be correct.

No one knows for sure. Its all theory.



I say it quite simply because its true, and I'm sorry to say that zealotry prevents people from understanding that.

Quite simply, its not possible to have a conversation about 9/11 any more.

No one listens. Its been proved in this thread that people don't read. They stick their fingers in their ears and shout "la la la" while continually restating their own point of view over and over.

9/11 truth? Not possible, because no one wants to discuss it. People just want to dictate and condem anyone who doesn't see it their way.

I agree with the philosophy that we are somewhat in the twilight zone. Early day comments from engineers and designers, including WT7 construction managers all put the "inferno" as the root cause of collapse using terminology such as "melted steel" rather than softened steel and were also quick to point out the lack of immediate evacuation. All the obfuscating about asbestos, or it's prior removal or not, all according to who you believe have little in common with the general consensus to date that the the twin towers were doomed by a hit from an aircraft such as a 757 or for that matter a 707 fully laden with fuel...unless of course it was only (supposedy) coming in to land... WTF! Whether there was a conspiracy in falling the towers or not, there sure as hell is a conspiracy once they fell.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
when planes crashes occur they take all the pieces no matter how small or insignifigant...reassemble the pieces in a layout and analyse for ages.


That is only done when the cause of the accident is unknown. It is never done when there was a known cause, it is too expensive of a process to do just for the fun of it. 99% of crashes are either pilot error or mechanical failure, and the root cause is unknown, which is why it is normally done, but not when the exact cause is known.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio

The documentary "9/11 Eyewitness" is one of the best I have seen in regards to an independent physics lab analyzing the data and video.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by daddio]


Wow, thanks for sharing this. I thought i had seen every 911 video there was to see over the years, but this video might be the most damming of all the other videos combined. It's a very rare video, atleast to me, from a guy with a camcorder who captured everything.

I highly recommend for anyone intrested to watch this. Some might know it as the "Hoboken" video. It's about an 1:45 mins long. It shows the events of that day from an angle not seen in any of the other videos and captures clear audio of numerous explosions that's undeniable, plus other anomalies.

Thanks again.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia



Ok, it seems I didn't make myself clear enough. What you felt about the event at the time has absolutely no bearing at all on what really happened. Just because you can't accept doesn't make it suddenly not true.

I knew you would say that, I did accept it for a short time to an extent, until one day a simple man asked me "doesn't it look like it (WTC) was blown up, like from the inside...with explosives?" I'd never thought of it quite like that and at that point I became scared because i finally, for the first time, was open minded to the possibility of an inside job. I've asked the same questions for years and had them ignored 9/10 times, it's simple plainly stated questions that I think are relevant that go unanswered like


How do you know how a steel structure would behave under those unique circumstances? What do you have to compare to?


and


How much of that fuel was consumed in the massive fireball we all saw? Percentage wise? Why is the O/S of the government (that you acknowledge are liars) the obvious answer? Did you put it together like they did immediately after the events happened...honestly?


Honest questions, I'm really curious as to your personal opinion, do YOU have any expertise or experience in anything being argued? I just somehow doubt that you had all this technical knowledge and came to the same conclusion you come to today before you heard the O/S propaganda "catapulted" through the media even before the rigged 9/11 commission. In short, all you are really doing is parroting and that is all I ever hear.



I have a good idea that the majority of the floor that was undamaged would have held on pretty well for being such a strong steel construct. When the part of the floors that were damaged and being exposed to burning fuel and other fires against the then unprotected steel finally gave way, all of the weight of the upper tower rested on the rest of the floor. This is explained in a report about the incident. Then, a force I don't completely understand, but was described as something like plasticity took place in which material on the floors began bowing. The stress became too much and the supports gave way, making the tower begin to fall in the direction of least resistance, also known as the giant hole in the building. Because the other side of the building was still fairly firmly attached to the structure, it basically "held onto" the falling portion and transferred more of its energy to the structure below, causing the systematic failure of the lower structure and the top-down collapse as seen on TV.


Minimal jet fuel left to keep the fires going in the first place plus recordings of the radio transmissions from many firefighters stating isolated pockets of fire, not blazing inferno, testimony from firefighters and more about HUGE explosions, that blew entire rooms up. The whole official story is reliant upon the assumption that these fires weakened the steel and only because of the fireproofing that they tell you got knocked off. Debunkers can't POSSIBLY answer all the questions or explain all the holes in the story.

Read about the history of the place that you live in, and stop letting corporate news tell lies to your children...



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by JKersteJr

Originally posted by Varemia



Ok, it seems I didn't make myself clear enough. What you felt about the event at the time has absolutely no bearing at all on what really happened. Just because you can't accept doesn't make it suddenly not true.

I knew you would say that, I did accept it for a short time to an extent, until one day a simple man asked me "doesn't it look like it (WTC) was blown up, like from the inside...with explosives?" I'd never thought of it quite like that and at that point I became scared because i finally, for the first time, was open minded to the possibility of an inside job. I've asked the same questions for years and had them ignored 9/10 times, it's simple plainly stated questions that I think are relevant that go unanswered like


How do you know how a steel structure would behave under those unique circumstances? What do you have to compare to?


and


How much of that fuel was consumed in the massive fireball we all saw? Percentage wise? Why is the O/S of the government (that you acknowledge are liars) the obvious answer? Did you put it together like they did immediately after the events happened...honestly?


Honest questions, I'm really curious as to your personal opinion, do YOU have any expertise or experience in anything being argued? I just somehow doubt that you had all this technical knowledge and came to the same conclusion you come to today before you heard the O/S propaganda "catapulted" through the media even before the rigged 9/11 commission. In short, all you are really doing is parroting and that is all I ever hear.

Minimal jet fuel left to keep the fires going in the first place plus recordings of the radio transmissions from many firefighters stating isolated pockets of fire, not blazing inferno, testimony from firefighters and more about HUGE explosions, that blew entire rooms up. The whole official story is reliant upon the assumption that these fires weakened the steel and only because of the fireproofing that they tell you got knocked off. Debunkers can't POSSIBLY answer all the questions or explain all the holes in the story.

Read about the history of the place that you live in, and stop letting corporate news tell lies to your children...


I'm no more of an expert on the subject than you are. All I know is what I saw and what makes sense to me. And for the record, I haven't even read the O/S. I've read a report that references the O/S, but I've never actually read it, so the "spewing back everything I've already heard" argument doesn't completely apply. These are my personal opinions on the matter, and I can't buy into the explosions theory.

We're actually kind of in the same realm. You need to provide solid scientific evidence to convince me, and I need solid scientific evidence to convince you. Both of us are not seeing the picture here. The O/S HAS provided the evidence. I don't need to find it at all, however hard I've been reasoning it without a proper background in plane-to-steel-skyscraper collisions. The O/S has the evidence with mathematical formulas to show the energy transfers, explains the tilting of the top of the tower, shows the heat and positioning of the damaged building that led to the failure. EVERYTHING is in the O/S. All any of us are having here are people's opinions of the way it looked. We've got countless eyewitness testimonies, all sorts of people that question the official reports, and tons who just don't believe it happened the way it did. Unfortunately, this isn't a mob=right world. Just because a bunch of people think so, doesn't mean it is so.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, neither of us have nearly as much evidence as the official story. All that is presented here is basically grasping at straws saying "I swear it looks like this!" when the science of it is what is really real.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I will agree on the point about if it is an unknown crash....but it is an unknown....the voice boxes alone would help clarify what happpen on the planes...and actually frankly it is an unknown...it is still assumed that this unexperienced pilots took over the planes....so i might go to your known bit here....maybe it is known...myabe it is known not to be as the OS says...maybe TPTB know exactly what happened and don't want it to get out.

As i have said ...it is a crime sene.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


NEf i do listen quite well...i made one error in judgement on your NIST statement.....but as for reasonanle replies....when your mentioned GRAVITY....i gave a nice long pictorial reply to your question.

Did you come back and say..."oh i see the posssibility there and the idea your trying to present"...

no you came back with rhetoric...about how till you leave this coil you will only believe one way.....that is not open discussion that is complete narrow mindedness.

i hope when your in your civil engineering committes discussing your proposed structural ideas and you get rebuttle from other professionals that is not the response you give.

every question i get asked i give a fairly decent IF not 100% correct response.

but hey it doesn't make a difference i know that there are some who are willing to look at issues with open minds.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
no you came back with rhetoric...about how till you leave this coil you will only believe one way.....that is not open discussion that is complete narrow mindedness.


What I said was this



As I keep stating, and will no doubt continue to state until the day I move off this mortal coil, 9/11 was the rule, not the exception to the rule. Until Sept 11th 2001 no one had flown two commercial jet liners into two 1300ft+ tall towers. No one, not one single person had any idea before the day what would happen in those circumstances, and no one after the event can say for sure what actually did happen because the buildings were rubble and there was no going back - but frankly anyone that tells you that the only way these towers could come down was through explosives is making it up. They simply do not know.


Read it. Then look at what you think I said. Then read it again.

I have most definitely not said I only beleive one way.

I have said that no one knows, and that making bold proclamations about one side of the story only is complete fallacy.

READ things. Don't just react to what you think you've read. You most clearly did not read it, did you?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


not sure how you can say that...you just said you wanted expert opinion....welll there is many saying that steel buidings DO NOT behave in that fashion.....

I showed you where planes YES planes have hit builings....one hit the Empire and YES and where a 747 hit a concrete apartment block.

both buildings stood....then i explained why i thought the steel structure should not have come down in that fashion yet again and you come back with just a bit of tripe saying oooh look bent steel.

i did not reply to that as it was a childish remark the fact towers did come right down so of course some bent steel...but the point is not wether they came down but the fashion in which they came down.

YES i have some good expertise on the strength and contruction of steel skyscrapers.

and i hope that i present things in a fairly reasonable and understable way rather than trying to baffle with BS.

I know people are not all educated in the way buldings are constructed that is why i use photos...i also very specifically choose not to use youtube because i don't know the sources of where people get their stuff.

but it is good to see we are trying to work out what really happened on the day cause we are not going to get it from the OS or TPTB because they know what happened and don't want the public to know how far they would go and the lives they would use to proceed down the path they take to get what they want.

[edit on 023030p://f48Wednesday by plube]

[edit on 023030p://f51Wednesday by plube]



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


9/11 is not the rule...you think structural engineers dont build to take into account planes striking highrises after 50 floors.

i read that NEf and i dont agree with what your saying there at all.

have you heard of structural forensics.....of course it is possible to find out what happened...BUT no outside bodies were allowed to even look at the rubble.

a heavy bomber plane hit the empire state building yes...not fly as fast....yes not as big....but come on we have experience with what occurs.

a 747 hit an apartment block of far weaker construction than the towers...but hey...still stood.

when those planes hit the towers and i watched the second one hit live on the news.....just as many people around the world did.....the buildings took the hit just as they should have.

but like I say you are not going to believe anything when it does not prove what you want to hear in my personal opinion.

the whole scene has been a coverup from the start and of course that leads to speculation from the general public.

let a team of independant structural forensic engineers at the materials removed from ground zero....and then maybe this would all go away.

Or maybe least the truth might be exposed.







[edit on 023030p://f53Wednesday by plube]



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
People HAPPY with the status quo, will NOT believe that 9/11 was allowed to happen or made to happen so that the Government could take us to war and rid corporations of the pesky Constitution,...

mainly, because to allow yourself to BELIEVE such a thing means that you have to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

You buy diamonds and don't think about the blood spilt to procure it in Africa -- we are all guilty of that.

THE FEAR, of accepting the conspiracy theory -- is that you are participating in a con. And people would rather be ignorant than evil. You are suddenly no better than anyone else in the world.

>> Since I've never felt "more important" as an American than someone working in a sweat shop in Brazil, or better than someone in Iraq -- I don't have a built-in psychological need to believe in American Exceptionalism.


What our military does to steal oil in Iraq and put up strategic pipelines in Afghanistan is a war crime. The US is merely the enforcer for the WTO, the Banks and the multinational corporations. Our dollar is backed by our ability to inflict pain.


So 9/11 is the EXCUSE, so that we don't feel like we are beneficiaries of thugs. It isn't the evidence that is flawed -- it's that people NEED the rationalization. We have to feel like the Good Guys -- even though that's been a fraud for every war except perhaps two in the history of this country.







 
104
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join