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.

 

Lets say the OS was that the buildings had been taken down by explosives.....

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

It did not hit the ground before impact, it hit a camera pole, took a chunk out of a bush, hit 5 lamp poles, a construction trailer, the concrete ground structure and then impacted the building. Many people saw the impact directly, and I can show you their statements if you would like.



Better still, why not find some of the witnesses, including police officers, take them back to where they were that day and ask them to go over again what they saw. Ask them to consult maps and draw diagrams.

Since you seem particularly convinced of the Pentagon stuff I really recommend taking a look at this:





posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



an event witnessed by over 100 people


Care to show this info?? Videos please or atleast something...

I've seen many that dissagree..



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by winston_jones
Better still, why not find some of the witnesses, including police officers, take them back to where they were that day and ask them to go over again what they saw. Ask them to consult maps and draw diagrams.

Since you seem particularly convinced of the Pentagon stuff I really recommend taking a look at this:

This is one of the theories I was talking about. They ignore all evidence except the recollections of people years after the event, and then they selectively choose which ones to believe to come up with a theory that even they cannot explain the rationale behind.

Their theory essentially is that the plane dove towards the pentagon, then made a radical rightward bank, passing just over the facade of the building as bombs planted in front of it were set off. No joke.


Originally posted by CynicalM
Care to show this info?? Videos please or atleast something...

Here is a spreadsheet detailing what witnesses saw what: sites.google.com...



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

So exactly which law did that break?



The national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, requires that, without exception, the rubble of buildings over 10 stories tall that collapse must be retained for analysis.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by winston_jones

Originally posted by dereks

So exactly which law did that break?



The national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, requires that, without exception, the rubble of buildings over 10 stories tall that collapse must be retained for analysis.


Once again, which law was broken - NFPA 921 is NOT a law....

So we see yet another truther lie!



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I like playing what ifs, so lets see....

Ok, there are 2 scenarios:
1) Planes were flown into buildings, that were then brought down by explosives.
I'd go big time "What???", and wouldnt believe a word of it because it is a needlessly complicated plan. If you have the ability to plant the explosives *AND* hijack jets and fly them into targets, why waste half your attack potential? I generally belive people are not stupid, and that would be a very, very stupid plan. So I'd have a rather hard time believing that.
2) We do not have planes: just big bombs bringing down WTC 1-2, and debris destroying 3-7. Well, thats just another bombing, unusually large, but no particular problem in believing the szenario.

So: all in all: Even if we turn it around, the CD Story just makes no sense. And as long as truthers can't even come up with an inkling of an idea why to make this thing so complicated, I would need more than 2 or 3 discrepancies of the "he said, yet he said" kind.
Its like the whole BBC & Building 7 thing: Truthers say "Aha! something is wrong here" and I say "But what, and more importantly what for?"



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by winston_jones
We therefore do not even know whether those engine parts belonged to the planes that hit the buildings,


And this is the reason the truthers have zero credibility, so just which planes were they from?


One thing at a time please. This is just routine stuff. Analyse the engine parts and demonstrate that they came from the appropriate plane. Easy. It would only take an hour or two. Just think how many zero credibilty truthers would be silenced overnight by simply doing a routine forensic analysis that should have been done anyway!



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by winston_jones
by simply doing a routine forensic analysis that should have been done anyway!


How do you know that it was not done?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
This is one of the theories I was talking about. They ignore all evidence except the recollections of people years after the event, and then they selectively choose which ones to believe to come up with a theory that even they cannot explain the rationale behind.


They chose witnesses who were located in elevated positions that gave a good view of both the skies and the building. The great majority of witness had POVs that were largely obscured by trees or the roofs of their own cars.

I do not share the authors' conclusions as to what actually happened but their basic research is solid and should not be dismissed lightly.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by winston_jones
by simply doing a routine forensic analysis that should have been done anyway!


How do you know that it was not done?


Source here

The fact that, nine years on, there is still debate over the identity of the planes is because this routine procedure was not followed.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by winston_jones
Source here


Not a official report...


The fact that, nine years on, there is still debate over the identity of the planes is because this routine procedure was not followed.


Only people claiming there is any doubt over the identity of the planes are conspiracy theorists, who are known to constantly tell lies!



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by winston_jones
 


" ... over 80% of the steel rubble was whisked away and sold to China before accident investigators could get their hands on it. "

This has been proven to be a lie , over and over , and over again .

Google is user-friendly . Don't be afraid to try it .



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by winston_jones
 


" Just think how many zero credibilty truthers would be silenced ... "

None . Zero . Nada . Those same truthers would continue with their usual rhetoric . As they currently do .

Look at all the conspiracy theories that have been proven to have no merit . Look at all those that have been proven to be outright lies .

And , every single one of them is still being repeated and presented as evidence .

If the government came straight out and said " Yes , we brought the buildings down with controlled demolition ..." , truthers would say " The government never tells the truth , they are hiding something , otherwise they wouldn't be telling us this . We can't trust this report because it was released by the government . There is a conspiracy here somewhere ... "

Truthers will never be sated , regardless of the conclusions of a thousand new investigations .



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Only people claiming there is any doubt over the identity of the planes are conspiracy theorists, who are known to constantly tell lies!


Also people with some regard for basic forensic procedures who prefer not to jump to conclusions before they have been conducted. I expect they're just as bad.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



Of course you are right.

I wish I could be as easily sated as you and beleive everything they say.

Life would be so much simpler.

Unfortunately I am a deranged nutjob and don't beleive the official 9/11 story.

I'm sure there's some meds for that though.

Hopefully someday I can be as unquestionably trusting as you.

Peace



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by winston_jones
 


" ... over 80% of the steel rubble was whisked away and sold to China before accident investigators could get their hands on it. "

This has been proven to be a lie , over and over , and over again .



I'd like to see your source for that assertion. As far as I'm aware the 80% figure is largely agreed on. The tonnage of steel shipped to China and India is known rather precisely: there are contracts.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by winston_jones
 


" Just think how many zero credibilty truthers would be silenced ... "

None . Zero . Nada . Those same truthers would continue with their usual rhetoric . As they currently do .


I think you'd find all those no-planers would at least have to go back to the drawing board.


Look at all the conspiracy theories that have been proven to have no merit . Look at all those that have been proven to be outright lies .


There again, look at all the ones that turned out to have a lot of merit.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skinon
Just been reading this topic lately and of course its the 9 year anniversery, so it's fresh in alot of peoples minds...
Anyway, this topic is more to for me to try and figure out how people STILL hopelessly cling to the OS BS.
So imagine if you will, that on that fateful day, it was admitted (for whatever reason) that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

Now all of a sudden these 'crazy' conspirisists come out claiming that it was actually brought down by jetfuel and weakening of 'vital' support structures. Now i find if you try to spin this around, you can actually realise how REDICULOUS the OS actually is. It's funny because then you would really be calling them crazy conspiricy theorists haha..



Well, in that case, why not claim a supernatural being really did create human being out of clods of dirt and all evil in the world is being caused by a demon whispering bad thoughts into people's ears. The world is really 10,000 years old, dinosaur bones have been planted by Satan to trick humans away grom God's truth, the universe really does revolve around the Earth, and every scientist from Galileo to Darwin to Einstein are really money grubbing con artists putting out lies for some ulterior gain. Wouldn't that make you realize you've been a complete ninny all along? Ha Ha!

I'm sorry, but for your controlled demolitiong stories to be true it necessarily has to rely on just way, WAY too much make believe to make it work. All the occupants in the towers would need to be blind, blithering idiots to not notice strangers draggging in tons of explosives and planting them everywhere, all the police, fire fighters, steel workers, etc picking up the wreckage and rescuing survivors at ground zero would need to ignore alll the blatantly sabotaged steel, all the NIST, FEMA, MIT, etc examiners would need to intentionally cover up the evidence they're examining, all the photos would need to be doctored, all the material evidence would need to be planted/manufactured, all the eyewitnesses would need to be lying about what they saw, foreign nations would need to be going along with the scheme and actively covering it up, and so on...and even then, your "answer" only creates more questions than it actually answers (I.E. why waste time crashing airplanes into the buildings if they're just going to be bombed?).

The reason I'm makign the comparison is that it's becoming more and more self evident that you're just a few hair's width away from being a religion unto yourselves- you have faith that some unseen shadowy force with omnipotent powers to alter reality in any way they see fit is behind eveything, and everyone and everything that refutes what you want to believe is either a willing accomplice or an unthinking dupe. NOW, you're using the exact same thought games the Bible thumpers play with this "Let's just pretent for a moment what we're saying is actually right" stunt, like imagining 2+2=5 will make it true somehow. This isn't research- it's a runaway train of circular logic and self delusion.

You people are so much in love with these conspiracy stories that you WANT them to be true. "WAAAAAAAKE UUUUUUP!" is damned right!



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by winston_jones
They chose witnesses who were located in elevated positions that gave a good view of both the skies and the building. The great majority of witness had POVs that were largely obscured by trees or the roofs of their own cars.

This is not entirely true, I know of at least one instance where a witness they interviewed said he had a directly line of sight and saw the plane fly into the building without question. In response to this they claimed he was lying and his view was actually obscured.

This is the rationale they use for any 'impact witnesses'. Anyone who says they saw the impact didn't, because in their theory it was an illusion, and therefore anyone saying they saw the impact saw only the illusion, and can't be used as evidence against their theory.

I'm sure you can see where this becomes self defeating.


I do not share the authors' conclusions as to what actually happened but their basic research is solid and should not be dismissed lightly.

While I appreciate that they actually went out and interviewed people, what they failed to do is then organise that into any kind of workable hypothesis. I have asked them to do this many times and have been rebuked at every stage. Even attempts at analysis by myself showing that (for example) their witnesses to the north, near the cemetery were not disagreeing with the 'official story'.

Until a hypothesis exists that can be tested, then their theory exists only to shed doubt upon the 'official story', not provide a more convincing alternative.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


If I could , I would give you 100 stars and 100 flags for that post .

Everything about it was excellent , pristine , and concise . That post should be front-page headlines , with a big fat arrow pointing towards the word 'TRUTH' .

And you are also correct in the referrence to religion . I agree 100% . I've entertained those very thoughts , numerous times .

The TM is going to prove one thing , and one thing only . And that is , that history does indeed repeat itself .



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join