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.

 

The Zapruder film of 9/11 - Actor Daniel Sunjata

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Anok, bonez, virginia, bsbray and others, just step back a little and analyze GOD's response to the OS defense.
Pshcyiatrically it is a classic example of "COGNITIVE DISSONANCE"

Barbara streistan said it best in a song "What's too painful to remember, we simply choose to forget..."




posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You got any proof that I ever said the outside walls (for the most part) did not land on top of the pile ?
I didn't think so .
See , this is where both sides in these debates need to quit the crap . Simply because I am not a truther , you automatically ASSUME that I hold certain opinions .
How would you like it if I just assumed that you believe everything that has been spouted by the TM ?

I have said it more than once ... Neither side has all the answers .

Do not assume anything about me until you ask me directly , or you see where I have made statements that would validate your assumption .



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by ANOK
 


You got any proof that I ever said the outside walls (for the most part) did not land on top of the pile ?
I didn't think so .


LOL no need to as it's an irrelevant point. The OSers have been denying that building 7 landed in its own footprint since the beginning. If you had been there you would have followed suit, I have no doubt.



See , this is where both sides in these debates need to quit the crap . Simply because I am not a truther , you automatically ASSUME that I hold certain opinions .
How would you like it if I just assumed that you believe everything that has been spouted by the TM ?


OK fair enough, so how can you believe the OS if you know building 7 landed in its own footprint? Why are you arguing against controlled demolition?


I have said it more than once ... Neither side has all the answers .


If you don't have all the answers then why do you support the OS? Those of us who question the OS do so because it doesn't offer all the answers that it should. Is there something wrong with asking and debating those questions, or are we just supposed to except what we're told?


Do not assume anything about me until you ask me directly , or you see where I have made statements that would validate your assumption .


LOL maybe you should have just let my 'assumptions' stand because you have sort of, kind of, just a little, put your foot deep in your mouth.

If you admit all four walls landed on top of the debris pile, which you did in order to argue with my 'assumptions', then you are admitting the building landed in its own footprint. I have shown, as have others, how this is impossible from an uncontrolled collapse.

Foot in mouth disease?

Have a good day...



edit on 9/11/2010 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
No there is not because no other steel-structured highrise has ever collapsed before from fire, before 9/11 or after.


Because no other steel structured high rise were hit by heavily laden fast moving jets before... seems that when steel structured high rise buildings are hit by jets they collapse!


dereks pull hard on your neck til you hearing the popping sound then realize that...

WTC7 was not hit by a plane.

WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by a plane.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I'd say you got your Zapruder all over the place...

The North tower was hit first, head on, the south tower was hit slighty to the right side, resulting in a huge fireball outside the building. Yet, which building fell first?

Can you explain to me how a steel frame building can collapse (building 7) due to fire? This is the first time ever, in history. This building was not even hit by an airplane.
911research.wtc7.net...

How could the collapse of building 7 happen in free fall, when the frame was made of steel?
911research.wtc7.net...

How was it possible to navigate thru the lightpole jungle towards Pentagon, without the aircraft catching fire, until impact?
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Did FBI really point their finger at Bin Laden, solely because they found an passport, belonging to Satam Al Suqami on the streets below WTC ?
911research.wtc7.net...

Suqami was on the airplane that hit the north tower. The plane was completely absorbed into the building, and yet the passport of Suqami survived this impact, passing thru(?) the building and landed in pristine condition on the streets below Wtc ?
en.wikipedia.org...

So, the official theory is saying that the passport of Suqami survived the impact, but the flight recorders (black boxes) did not?
en.wikipedia.org...



The thing is, when you start digging around a bit, you soon realize that the Official Story cannot be 100 % true, due to lack of evidence, and in worst cases, due to misunderstading/misdirection of fundamental physics. The worst thing is the evidence which could give us any hints of if explosives was used, are already disregarded off. They simply no longer exist.
www.sourcewatch.org...

Why wouldnt it be possible for terrorists to plant explosives in the buildings prior to the attack? It surely is possible, as history shows. Why isnt those leads worth investigating?
en.wikipedia.org...

Why not kill any kind of conspiracy theory about to what hit Pentagon, by releasing the videos from the nearby hotel surveillance camera?
911research.wtc7.net...

How can the media agree on 1 villain within hours after the attacks, when not even CIA or FBI had come to any official conclusion ?

When it came to an official investigation, why did President (George W. Bush), and the Vice-president (Richard Cheney) BOTH refuse to testify under oath ?
en.wikipedia.org...

Did you notice the lack of democracy involved in the last question?

I can go on and on...
It stinks ...



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Actually, all it proves is that the Penthouse lost structural integrity. It says nothing of the rest of the internal structure, which would still need to be failed simultaneously (there are some 100 columns in the building IIRC, of which only a few would be directly supporting the Penthouse).


edit on 12-9-2010 by mirageofdeceit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
i have seen that vid countless times.

because it looks so much like a controlled demo it rarley gets footage on tv.

its more than a zapruder film. the zapruder film has alot of speculation to it. the wtc7 vid, that pretty much says everything.

how can a building that has sustained so little damage fall like that? i want some other explanation. please to god somebody come up with an explanation that actually fits that isn't controlled demo.

chances are i wont get that.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by X9ballX
how can a building that has sustained so little damage fall like that? i want some other explanation. please to god somebody come up with an explanation that actually fits that isn't controlled demo.

chances are i wont get that.


You got the explanation on the previous page, from a fire officer who was on the scene, but like all truthers you ignore the facts that do not fit your silly conspiracy theory



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


" LOL no need to as it's an irrelevant point . "

You lump me into a category , thereby making assumptions that cannot be validated , and when I ask you why you did this , you tell me it's irrelevant . Standard operating procedure for the (untruth) movement .

" If you had been there you would have followed suit , I have no doubt . "

Another assumption on your part . You've been around these 9/11 threads long enough to know that I started out as a 'truther' . Building 7 was the main focus of my original interest back when I joined ATS .

" ... how can you believe the OS if you know building 7 landed in it's own footprint ? Why are you arguing against controlled demolition ? "

Why do you people continue to pretend that the collapse of building 7 did not cause damage to any surrounding structure ? If you agree that it did cause damage to surrounding structures , why do you continue to claim that it fell into "it's own footprint" ?
Why haven't you , or anyone else , produced any solid , irrefutable evidence that it was controlled demolition ?

" If you don't have all the answers then why do you support the OS ? "

If you don't have all the answers , why do you support the TM ? Can you see the irony in that question ? You are part of the TM . Do you support DEW ? Mini-nukes ? Nano-thermite ? Controlled demolition with conventional explosives ? Pods on airplanes ? Holograms ? No planes ? Missiles ? Substitute planes ? T.V. fakery ? UFO's ?
Every bit of that comes from the TM . Do you support every bit of that ? If not , what gives you the arrogance to assume that I support every bit of the OS , whatever the hell it is that you define it as ?
Can you not see the fallacy in your argument ? Probably not .

" Is there something wrong with asking and debating these questions , or are we just supposed to except (sic) what we're told ? "

Is there something wrong with asking questions about , and debating , the myriad list of theories put forth by the TM ? Or , are we just supposed to ACCEPT (not "except") what we're told by the TM ?

If the TM says it was CD , without providing evidence that would hold up in a court of law , are we to just accept that ? There is not a doubt in my mind that all of you would be laughed out of any courtroom in this country , if you relied on what has been erroneously referred to as 'evidence' by the TM .

But hey , I for one, hope you do get your new investigation . Maybe then , we can move on to a real conspiracy . Like , why did the EPA claim there were no health hazards associated with breathing the toxic mixture at ground zero .

Do you people even care that there are people who are still sick and dying , from breathing the toxins that were dispersed ?

You guys want to tackle a conspiracy that CAN BE PROVEN ? Why not jump on the EPA ? Does that one not have as much appeal , or what ?

That right there , would be your proverbial "chink-in-the-armor" . You want some heads to roll , demand to know why the re-opening of Wall Street was more important than the safety and health of thousands of people .

Demand to know why the EPA lied about the health risks involved .

I'll be right there with you on that one .






edit on 12-9-2010 by okbmd because: spelling



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Here is William Jefferson Clinton's response to a question about WTC Building 7. By this response, it is obvious that Slick Willy is quite the expert on 9/11 and his analysis of the events should be taken very seriously.






edit on 12-9-2010 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
Why haven't you , or anyone else , produced any solid , irrefutable evidence that it was controlled demolition ?

There has been irrefutable evidence. You just continue to ignore it for some ridiculous reasoning.

Can you produce a single instance where a steel-structured highrise has fallen straight down from normal office fires?



Can you produce a single instance where a steel-structured highrise has fallen straight down from normal office fires while making BOOM BOOM BOOM sounds?

I know you can't produce a single instance because it's never happened before except for in controlled demolitions. You can make up all the excuses you want to explain away the evidence, but that's all you'll be doing is making up theories and opinions, all while automatically being debunked by history and the evidence.

I guarantee you were never a truther, based on the above alone.



Originally posted by okbmd
Do you support DEW ? Mini-nukes ? Nano-thermite ? Controlled demolition with conventional explosives ? Pods on airplanes ? Holograms ? No planes ? Missiles ? Substitute planes ? T.V. fakery ? UFO's ? Every bit of that comes from the TM .

Which further proves you were never a truther. You have dishonestly and untruthfully stated that all of the above comes from the truth movement and the underlined parts above do not come from the truth movement and anyone that peddles the above underlined disinformation is not a truther.

Not one single 9/11 research organization supports the above underlined garbage. If you were ever a truther, you would know this. But for you to make such a false claim, proves you were never a truther and have done little research into 9/11 or the truth movement.



Originally posted by okbmd
Do you people even care that there are people who are still sick and dying , from breathing the toxins that were dispersed ?

The truth movement raises money all the time for the sick first responders. Had you ever been a real truther, you would know this as well, further proving you were never a truther.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
"But hey , I for one, hope you do get your new investigation . Maybe then , we can move on to a real conspiracy . Like , why did the EPA claim there were no health hazards associated with breathing the toxic mixture at ground zero . You guys want to tackle a conspiracy that CAN BE PROVEN ? Why not jump on the EPA ? Does that one not have as much appeal , or what ?"

Now, the above statement makes a whole lot of sense. Yeah sure, let us just all forget about who was responsible for killing thousands of people and polluting Lower Manahattan with toxins on 9/11 and move on to why did the EPA lie to the public? Nice to see you have your priorities in order.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Can you produce a single instance where a steel-structured highrise was subjected to the undeniable damage that befell WTC7 , that burned for as long as it did , that did not collapse ?

Why do you people continue to dismiss the damage that was inflicted upon WTC7 ?

Probably for the same reasons that you continue to claim evidence of CD , when you still fail to have produced any such evidence .

Bonez , if you have undeniable evidence of CD , why are you wasting your time on this site ? Why aren't you petitioning your congressmen to take a look at your 'evidence' , and get the ball rolling towards a new investigation ?

You could be the hero of untold numbers of truthers . Just present the evidence . I could help school you in the ways and means of getting placed on a court venue , if that is what is holding you up .

Hell , there is even all those actors , military folks , scientists , architects , engineers , etc ., who would probably be more than willing to help you get it before a court . I'm sure that it wouldn't even require you spending any of your own money .

What are you waiting on bonez ? After all , you do have all this evidence ? Or , are you really not 100% sure of that ?

Hmmm ...



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
Why do you people continue to dismiss the damage that was inflicted upon WTC7 ?

NIST does, why can't you? NIST says in their own report that the damage to WTC 7 was not a factor in it's collapse. In other words, the damage was irrelevant. So please, stop bringing up the irrelevant damage and focus on NIST's explanation that regular office fires brought down a steel-structured highrise, something that has never happened before in history. Thanks.



Originally posted by okbmd
Probably for the same reasons that you continue to claim evidence of CD , when you still fail to have produced any such evidence .

I'm sorry you don't comprehend what the definition of "evidence" is, but it includes witness testimony and audio/visual evidence as well.



Originally posted by okbmd
Why aren't you petitioning your congressmen to take a look at your 'evidence'

That's happening every week (and sometimes every day) in may states, including DC. If you were paying attention at all to the truth movement, you would know this.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
Why do you people continue to dismiss the damage that was inflicted upon WTC7 ?


Because it's irrelevant, how many more times does this have to be told before it sinks in?...

The ONLY way a building can land in its own footprint is by controlled demolition.

Can you prove that statement to be false?

All four outer walls of WTC 7 ended up on top of the debris pile.

Can you prove that statement to be false?

If all four walls ended up on top of the debris pile it means the building mostly landed in its own footprint.

Can you prove that statement to be false?

A controlled implosion demolition is designed to make a building land mostly in its own footprint.

Can you prove that statement to be false?

WTC 7 was a controlled implosion demolition.

Can you prove that statement to be false?

If not then all your other points are irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Seeing as how I have NEVER , NOT ONCE , quoted NIST to support any of my opinions and arguments , why must you continue to ask me to look at what NIST says ?

Also , why do you cherry-pick the NIST report and agree only with what fits your theories , while calling bunk to the rest of it ?


And , how can you , or anyone else , claim that a 20-story (?) gash in the building was irrelevant ?

That is absurd .


edit on 12-9-2010 by okbmd because: sentence structure



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Can you prove that WTC7 was felled by controlled demolition ?

If not , then all of your other points are irrelevant .

And , I don't care to see all of the same old tripe . I want you to show me absolute , irrefutable proof of CD . Something that will actually hold up in a court of law .

If you can't convince me , how do you expect to ever convince the court ?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Actually, all it proves is that the Penthouse lost structural integrity. It says nothing of the rest of the internal structure, which would still need to be failed simultaneously (there are some 100 columns in the building IIRC, of which only a few would be directly supporting the Penthouse).



This makes no sense whatsoever. For the penthouse to fall into the interior of the building it necessarily means it DOES say soemthing about the internal structure. Something had to have degraded the internal structure for the penthouse to have collapsed becuase it was the internal structure that was supporting the penthouse.

Let me get this straight, just so that we're on the same page...you acknowledge that yes, wreckage from WTC 1 did fall on WTC 7, yes, the impact from the wreckage did smash WTC 7 up and start fires, yes, the power and water needed to suppress the fires were cut off from WTC 7, yes, the fires in WTC 7 burned out of control, yes, critical supports were destroyed which caused the penthouse to collapse into the interior ten seconds before the whoel thing fell...and yet you insist the NIST report is a pack of lies?!?

Dude this is 90% of what the NIST report says. The only difference is that instead of the fires destroying specific critical locations, it was your supposed secret demolitions. Why you keep insisting NIST is a bunch of liars when you're only agreeing with the majority of what they're reporting? It seems to me if that you're agreeing with all the step by step processes leading up to the event that caused the collapse, then the event they're reporting that caused the collapse itself would be at least plausible.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
And , how can you , or anyone else , claim that a 20-story (?) gash in the building was irrelevant ?

That is absurd .


Not to mention, a three story bulge in the structure in the same location where firefighters reported that fires were burning out of control.

Bonez tries to deny it, but it's blatantly obvious he's simply swallowing the foolishness that Richard Gage is shoveling out. I haven't been to any of his presentations so I don't know...does Gage take the three story bulge in the location of the fires into account in his CD scenario, or does he just pretend it never happened so that it won't cast doubt on the story he's pushing?

I probably answered my own question here, huh?


edit on 13-9-2010 by GoodOlDave because: Thought of something more to say



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join