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.

 

Scientists, Military Officers, and Actors are among new 9/11 research organizations

page: 6
121
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by The Ghost Who Walks
 


Did the reporter know which building was the Solomon Brother's Building? I didnt know what building was what.. Did she know which building was WTC7?

Also, because they reported this, are the other actual reports of car bombs also true?


edit on 9/11/2010 by GenRadek because: fix comment




posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
What's really funny is how members of ATS consistently bash mainstream science (scientists), millitary operations (millitary officers) and then go on to tell you that hollywood/television (actors) is brainwashing us.....

....EXCEPT when they're on our side.

Reminds me of my christian co-worker who uses science to rationalize his faith, except when the science isn't in support of his faith.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 

Are you happy with what the conventional mind has given the world up on till now?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Gatorman3
 


You know, I would, but to be honest, this whole thing is like a giant game of "whack a mole". All of his questions have been answered time and again, many many many times in the past here on ATS, and elsewhere. Then they POP UP again, and its the same old nonsense. I do not see whats the point of addressing his questions, if they have been answered ad nauseum before, and as usual, IGNORED. What is the point if it is just going to be ignored again? I have seen these same points and "questions" answered years ago. Why are they still popping up as if its something new? Those are not new questions, and they have been answered.

Remember, deny ignorance. That is the ATS motto. But what I am seeing is the opposite. The same claptrap since Loose Change v. 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,etc, Sept. Clues, rense, A&E4T, PFFFT, etc etc etc,
that have been answered time and again. If he wants to have them answered, he should go back through the archives of ATS. My responses and other's as well are all there. But I guess when the answers dont satisfy the preconcieved notions, ignore and ask ad nauseum until someone gives up, then proclaim victory.
enough with this game.


The questions may have been answered previously by members here on ATS but they are not official answers from people involved in the events of 911.
Is anyone on ATS able to make qualified statements as to what caused the buildings to collapse?
Can anyone here on ATS verify that it's possible to fly a commercial airliner with the experience that the "terrorists" were reported to have had and crash them with such accuracy?
There are plenty of armchair experts with huge egos all offering their interpretations as to why the OS is beyond criticism, but let's hear it from those qualified.
The original investigation left questions unanswered, many of them deliberately.
We now have many people, Military Officers, Scientists and yes Actors (which I don't have a problem with, their views are perfectly valid) asking for a further investigation.
They obviously see alot of discrepancies in the OS.
Why is there so much opposition to another investigation?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by The Ghost Who Walks
 


Why is there so much opposition to another investigation?
Ill tell yea why,, if they did they would bring back the Guillotine! can anybody guess who would be first to walk up the step's?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
This orginizations all suffer from the same flaws and are all pretty bogus for the same reasons:

1. Their members don't actually possess special info: they base their opinions, almost entirely on what they saw on TV.

2. Some of the people they claim to be part of their cause, in fact, don't support them at all. Two easy examples: Wes Clarke and Jim Webb. How dishonest is it to put up the names and faces fo people, that don't agree with your, and claim it as support for your cause? Extremely dishonest. Think about that. If a politicians did that, would you trust them? And yet many of you are gonna come on here and defend that behaviour. Sad.

3. They clearly represent a miniscule percentage of their various orginization's membership. If, logically, having a few thousand Engineers, means something, than having the other 99+% believe the opposite, or at least refuse to join in with the less than 1%, must mean a HELL OF A LOT MORE.

No, no special info, dishonest tactics and self-defeating math.

All of these are meanigless, essentially, even if a few of the members are interesting.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by The Ghost Who Walks
 


Did the reporter know which building was the Solomon Brother's Building? I didnt know what building was what.. Did she know which building was WTC7?

Also, because they reported this, are the other actual reports of car bombs also true?


edit on 9/11/2010 by GenRadek because: fix comment



Just because they mistakenly reported car bombs which later proved to be false doesn't dismiss the fact she reported the Solomon Brothers building had collapsed when it can clearly be seen standing. Ad hominem.

We can only speculate whether she knows that the Solomon Brothers building is WTC7.
For arguments sake let's assume she didn't know they are one and the same, someone has told her to report the collapse of the building.
The fact is the building is still standing as she makes the report.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by The Ghost Who Walks
 


So who then would you listen to? There are many qualified persons online who have addressed these issues, and found no fault with the events. (save for the few kooks, con artists, BSers, oppertunists, etc that have put a $$$ amount to the "truth" they want to hear).

Truthers ignore NIST and its thousands of real professionals and experts who generally agree on the events, you have FEMA, many fire fighters, controlled demolition experts, all saying that the demolition idea is all wrong. They ignore the subtle accounts that confirm mundane details about the conditions in and arund the WTCs. They have ignored the full accounts of people that were there, only to cherry pick, quote mine, take out of context, etc, the quote bits that say or mention what they want to hear. So what else is left? Its all been done. What more do you want?

And what questions should be "answered" by the govt or firefighters, first responders, whoever that were there? The ones that people made up about demolition charges, holograms, lasers, cruise missiles, magical thermites, orbs, etc? Like pertaining to WTC7 for example. Why is it that it is always ignored by the TM that WTC7 was damaged and burning and the obvious structural integrity was failing causing it to lean? Why is that always ignored? Why do you need someone with "authority" to tell you the answers, if others who have a little better understanding of the event, though werent there at the time, can explain it to you? Most of what the TM has come up with in their vast world of 9/11 conspiracies has 99% of time been based on minsunderstandings, false assumptions, innuendos, quotes taken out of contex, blurry videos on yt, and very much so, lies. So why should a "professional authority" take his/her time to go through every single whacked out idea the TM has brought forward, when so many others have alreay done the same?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Have you seen this?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


Well, that's a loaded question. But my answer is, simply, yes.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



I see that you can't answer the simple questions I posed. Once again, we reach the "the-collapse-didn't-look-right" stage and truther retreat into the distance. The entire "collapse-didn't-look-right" and "no-steel-framed-buildings-ever-collapsed-from-fire" arguments are made by people desperate for a CD conspiracy.


Sorry pteridine, but it's not that the "collapse-didn't-look-right."

It's that the"collapse-exactly-mimicked-a-controlled-demolition."

You know when they demolish a large building, engineering and explosive experts carefully case the building out. They determine where to place explosives, the quantity of explosive needed, and a timing pattern of detonations that will cause the building to fall in the desired manner, which is a rapid collapse into its own footprint.

How are we supposed to believe a randomly collapsing skyscraper could so closely mimic an event that we know takes a great deal of expert planning and preparation to accomplish?

Of all the ways WTC7 *could have collapsed, it just happened to collapse according to the stages of a flawlessly executed cotrolled demolition?

Plllleeeeaaaase!



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by flamingmonkey
This orginizations all suffer from the same flaws and are all pretty bogus for the same reasons:

1. Their members don't actually possess special info: they base their opinions, almost entirely on what they saw on TV.


Are you sure? Can you verify this or is this purely your viewpoint of what you think is the case?



2. Some of the people they claim to be part of their cause, in fact, don't support them at all. Two easy examples: Wes Clarke and Jim Webb. How dishonest is it to put up the names and faces fo people, that don't agree with your, and claim it as support for your cause? Extremely dishonest. Think about that. If a politicians did that, would you trust them? And yet many of you are gonna come on here and defend that behaviour. Sad.


You really need to check your facts first.
www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org...
There are two headings you need to look for:

Military Officers who have signed the "U.S. Military Officers for 9/11 Truth" Petition.
and
Military Officers who have made public statements questioning the official 9/11 account.

Wes Clarke is in the latter. I can find no mention of Jim Webb on the partion or the website.


3. They clearly represent a miniscule percentage of their various orginization's membership. If, logically, having a few thousand Engineers, means something, than having the other 99+% believe the opposite, or at least refuse to join in with the less than 1%, must mean a HELL OF A LOT MORE.

No, no special info, dishonest tactics and self-defeating math.

All of these are meanigless, essentially, even if a few of the members are interesting.



Regardless of how many you feel qualifies as sufficient does not make it meaningless.
Just because the majority haven't signed up for whatever reason unbeknownst to you does not make those that have signed up irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by The Ghost Who Walks
 


But wait, they also reported car bombs going off at the Capitol Building. Did they also happen because it was reported? There was footage from all over DC, so where were the car bombs at the Capitol Building? Or at the Mall?

Did the reporter know which building was that one? So what its still standing when she said it collapsed. When news is breaking and information is coming in like crazy from multiple sources, there will ALWAYS be errors in the initial information. In this case, reports of the WTC7's impending collapse was mashed up and accidentally switched to "already collapsed". No one told her to "report it as is" she was passed along information that was given by sources while not being thouroghly checked. Also, how do you know she knew what building was the one she was reporting?

This "Scripted " BS was started by those that are making a big deal over nothing. If that is the deception game they want to play, by making a mountain out of a molehill, what does it say about their credibility. One only has to look at the rest of the reports from that day that were misreported. Recall how some news casters said it was a "small plane" that hit the WTC. Other said it was a green cargo plane. So I take it someone also told them to report THAT as well? And the carbombs? But then this just proves that the BBC made a mistake. Nothing more.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by aethron
 


But that's a lore that doesn't benefit from close scrutiny.

If you ACTUALLY compare REAL footage of demos, you'll see that it's NOTHING like the WTCS,

Full stop.

Here's an ACTUAL controlled demo.



Note that:

There are timed explosions, multiple explosions, before the collapse starts.

Then, there's a MASSIVE explosion, which is unmistakable, at the base.

Then there are DOZENS of BRIGHT TIMED FLASHES running up the building.Not puffs of smoke, but timed flashes of light, visible. - ALSO - note that the explosions are all in straight lines, as they're wired in succession.

Then the building STARTS it's collapse in free fall. It doesn't achieve freefall after 20 secs and then only free fall for a few secs, but it starts in freefall.

This is a demo ^^^

None of things are true about the WTCs.

Now, a lot of early truthers knew this, which is why all the fanciful explanations were devised (nukes, nanothermite, etc.).

What's important though, if you wanna be honest and aren't just doing this to argue, is that claiming that they look like demos is FALSE. And claiming they look SO much like demos that it is a kinda of "proof" is especially false.






edit on 11-9-2010 by flamingmonkey because: (no reason given)




edit on 11-9-2010 by flamingmonkey because: spelling




edit on 11-9-2010 by flamingmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Absolutely correct.

How many times do wrong things get reported on live TV? Reading into that is very dishonest.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
A new investigation does not have to be expensive.... You just need a few gallons of water... some key politicians.... and a video-camera....



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by The Ghost Who Walks
 


So who then would you listen to? There are many qualified persons online who have addressed these issues, and found no fault with the events. (save for the few kooks, con artists, BSers, oppertunists, etc that have put a $$$ amount to the "truth" they want to hear).

Truthers ignore NIST and its thousands of real professionals and experts who generally agree on the events, you have FEMA, many fire fighters, controlled demolition experts, all saying that the demolition idea is all wrong. They ignore the subtle accounts that confirm mundane details about the conditions in and arund the WTCs. They have ignored the full accounts of people that were there, only to cherry pick, quote mine, take out of context, etc, the quote bits that say or mention what they want to hear. So what else is left? Its all been done. What more do you want?

And what questions should be "answered" by the govt or firefighters, first responders, whoever that were there? The ones that people made up about demolition charges, holograms, lasers, cruise missiles, magical thermites, orbs, etc? Like pertaining to WTC7 for example. Why is it that it is always ignored by the TM that WTC7 was damaged and burning and the obvious structural integrity was failing causing it to lean? Why is that always ignored? Why do you need someone with "authority" to tell you the answers, if others who have a little better understanding of the event, though werent there at the time, can explain it to you? Most of what the TM has come up with in their vast world of 9/11 conspiracies has 99% of time been based on minsunderstandings, false assumptions, innuendos, quotes taken out of contex, blurry videos on yt, and very much so, lies. So why should a "professional authority" take his/her time to go through every single whacked out idea the TM has brought forward, when so many others have alreay done the same?


Well obviously the people that have signed the partition are qualified enough to question the events of 911 and the response (or lack of as they see it) of the government and military at the time. Forget about all the wild theories about lasers, holograms etc. Don't use them to dismiss the legitimate arguments.
I'm sure you're intelligent enough to sort the BS ones from the ones that have at least some merit.
Let's address the sensible questions, you know what they are without me tediously restating them.

Read what they are saying here, www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org... , then address those questions with an open mind. Maybe, just maybe they have a point.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


Seen it, heard it, already been explained with a little something called LOGIC and CRITICAL THINKING! Two great inventions. The TM really should invest in this.

Ok, now Dave, please bear with me as I do not wish to insult your intelligence, or pick a fight with you, or anything bad. But what I really want for you to do is to use some common sense and critical thinking on that particular video. I take its about the "small fires easily able to knock down with one or two hoses" correct? Ok now Dave, (and please please please do not take it as if I am talking down to you or trying to disrespect you or anything ok? I'm not. I respect you and your opinions and thoughts, but I do wish to dispel this particular item you posted,) it is correct, firefighters did manage to make it up to the lowest affected floor. Yes they reported small pockets of fire, nothing too serious. I have no problem with their reports. Ok now, lets get into this deeper. You are aware that fire spreads correct? Ususally in a fire, the fires will travel up in relation to the building. Say floor #3 catches fire, the flames will spread to floor 4, 5, 6, depending on fuel, winds, etc etc etc. TMI. But the fact is, fires travel towards more fuel areas and leave depleted areas. Ok, so the firefighters reached the lowest floors to be affected by the impact. They dont see the large fires, because obviously the main body of flames is well above them. The floor they were on did not have a lot of "fuel" for the fire to consume and the fires were not a problem. however, above flames were roaring acorss multiple floors, and the firefighters did not reach the main impacted area of the building. The impacted and affected floors were between the 77th and 85th Remember it took some time for them to reach that floor. The fires moved up and farther in. So what they reported on the conditions at the lowest least affected level, is not relevant to the main action above. Also photos of the fires show something different. Lots of fires in the main affected areas. Fires spread up from the main impact.

And no, this video does NOT show that firefighters were working "throughout the building" as it claims. It does show how firefighters just managed to make it up to the 79th floor, the lowest affected floor, while the area of most damage and fires were on the 80th floors, and above. Its here the plane's main body and fuel impacted the building.

So what does this mean? You have been fooled into believing the fires were limited and small, insignificant, and therefore the WTCs should not have collapsed from the fires. Well, its a great con job really, and they expect you the listener/reader to not bother to think farther into it, or check up the facts, or even think critically or logically. They just set it up just right for you to believe indeed that the fires were small. But that was not the true case. Does it make logical sense to you Dave what I posted above? Do you understand why that video is deceptive, misleading, and tricking you? (In essence, its lying to you). The whole video is packaged just right, with added comentary nonsense like "structure was NOT melted or deformed" (even though in the audio, they warn that the walls are breached! Oh no its not deformed
) All that nonsense they added into the video just suckers you into believing it. Wow, no fires detected?
Dont they mean, up to the 79th floor? You know, where the plane impacted? They expect fires on 40th? 55th?
All that extra crap they added into it just ruins the whole presentation and makes you see things that are not true. Its ALL innuendo. A&E4T has just lied to you and decieved you with this crap presentation relying on innuendo, lies, and half truths. If you have any questions more about it, please U2U me and I'll be happy to assist or clarify this video for you.


edit on 9/11/2010 by GenRadek because: fix word



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by The Ghost Who Walks
 


Can I verify that they don't have special info?

Well, none of them claim to and if you read a lot of those statements you'll see, over and over again, when I saw it on TV, or read about it on the internet... I have yet to see, anyone claim special knowledge... if you see such a claim, please link me to it.

As for using famous people on your website and cheery picking out of context quotes, and then putting them on a website called:

Military Officers for 9/11 Truth (some thing Clarke isn't in to)

And then link to his statement, via a link labelled "Current Signatories".

..what will most poeple assume?

Let's see, I'll go to: www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org...

And then click: " Current Signatories".

And hey look, it's Wesley Clarke!

If you wanna pretend that's not leading or dishonest (it's both) then I don't hink you're willing to play fair.

If the govt put Stephen Jones on their Scientist that agree with the official story you guys would be rightfully rip#.

Here, you justify it.

In fairness you were right about Jim Webb, I meant (misremembered) Max Clelland. Also on there, also not a Truther.

Finally, why would the org boast about the numbers if numbers have no significance?

And they do, endlessly.

Again, as have been pointed out millions of times, these guys are essentially dishonest and generate propaganda, in the technical sense.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
This thread is a breading ground for miss-information and ignorance.

I wont dare pretend I'm a physicist, because I'm not. But I will say one thing. The laws of physics are common knowledge. Resistance slows speeds. Plain and simple. Remember, it's why they make cars aerodynamic. Even the air around us has enough density to cause a reduction of speed.

We need another investigation for 1 reason. The explanation is not physically possible. national institute of science and technology wants you to believe that if you suspended two 20 story buildings next to each other from a cable, and under one was nothing, under the second one was a 90 story building. If you drop both 20 story buildings at the same time which one will hit the ground first? NIST wants you to believe they will hit the ground at the same time. Nist wants you to believe that 20 stories of building can pulverize 90 stories of building. NIST wants you to believe all this which is blatantly not physically possible as albert einstein and others have taught us. He would be turning in his grave to hear people fighting over who said what, he did what, whos credable etc. The science solved this mystery on day 1 and no additional evidence was needed other then physical laws.

If making buildings fall perfectly on their footprint straight down was as easy as causing an explosion anywhere on the mid section of a building... then why have all these demo experts been spending millions and months to rig buildings to do this? Wrapping each support beam with explosives etc. Seems like now we should just start imploding buildings by rigging jet fuel explosions on the sides of them. I mean I know this has never brought down a building before, in the history of humanity, and was previously considered a horrible idea, but 3 buildings went straight down on 9-11 like this. Why aren't we investigating this new cheap way of implosion? Doesn't make sense eh?


P.S. they also want you to believe that jet fuel, a fuel that doesn't burn any hotter then 1400 degrees, was hot enough to MELT (not weaken the structure) of steel thats factual melting point is 2700 degrees. I wont even get into the fact this was HIGH GRADE industrial steel.

For those who would like to dispute Albert Einsteins theories please do so. Just remember 6+9 = 4.



edit on 11-9-2010 by Ciphor because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
121
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join