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.

 

Is this 9/11 nonsense going to ever go away? ZERO eveidence but still pushing on!

page: 39
61
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
reply to post by wcitizen
 


its simply amazing the "luck" factor ....

its UNBELIEVABLE if you try to analyze the luck factor in the big picture, its just mind blowing


Absolutely . And that's just one aspect of many incredibly huge statistical improbabilities in this.




posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Just a reminder...

No other building any where in the world is built in the same manner as those towers.
They were Unique in every way, not just the obvious size but materials and the technique.
So you can't really compare them to any other. And like wise you can't compare any other
Demolition Building to these either, they would behave very differnetly. A tradionally built
building would be a lot harder to knock down, and probably would have survived if it was.

This also adds to the Conspiracy, because there is nothing to compare to.



Have you actually read the statements by the experienced, knowledgeable demolition experts? Have you really considered what they say?

My guess is not, because you are merely pitting your own spurious assumptions against the expert testimony of professional experts, and based on that, dismilssing their statements out of hand.

You are pulling your statements out of thin air and then declaring them to be more valid than those of the professional experts. That is no way to discuss something.


edit on 24-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



>> You replied to ME, yet you put someone else's comment there as if it were mine?
The TOPIC IS; Get over it, there is ZERO evidence for a Conspiracy -- or maybe Zero Evidence for a Demolition -- whatever.

So I'm asking for EVIDENCE of Al Qaeda, Honesty with the Bush administration, or ANYTHING that gives us reason to NOT have a trial.

>> The Demolition Experts that Bush hired to investigate, might have been the same ones that set the charges -- right? Why wasn't the FBI involved in the investigation like the first WTC bombing?

>> Have I read the "Demolition expert's testimony?" Would they be speaking for the Defense or the Prosecution of SOMEONE on trial for 9/11 that I missed?

Not having something to "compare to" does NOT make a conspiracy in my mind -- I don't think that way. But I would say; Building 7 was not a unique building but WTC 1 and 2 were fairly unique.

What is UNIQUE is the level of denial we have in this country. Oh, no, not really -- it's the same thing that happened in Germany about 60 years ago. My bad.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
However, the FBI is NOT investigating Bin Laden for the crime -- he is not a suspect.

If you know and have proof that someone is involved, why would you need to open up an investigation? You would already have all the pieces.

Instead of being called a suspect, he would be called a criminal. He is being called a criminal.


edit on 23-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

It doesn't work like that you need a grand jury indictment, which wouldnever come the game is fixed, your as full of double talk as the rest the crooks.

In the 70s the US government supported genocide, they lie ,cheat, how do you think the Federal Reservee came about.
Avoid ingnore the facts.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Because those "other things" are not normally found in buildings and there is NO RECORD of anything close to what happened at the WTC to draw from.

Does that not eat the whole premise behind these 9/11 conspiracies? Since a terrorist attack on such a scale has never happened before, how can anyone say that this wasn't a terrorist attack? Unless you have an example of 'A' and 'B', we would not be able to prove definitively one way or another.


edit on 23-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



I'm not saying that it WASN'T a terrorist attack. We just have not verified WHO.
We also don't know if Bush let it happen or HELPED it happen.

You can dupe some al Qaeda terror cell with one guy -- because they don't know the other cells -- they just have a cause. Giving them money and plans and say; "attack this in New York" -- I don't think it would be questioned too much.

But I don't have to prove that do I?

What we need is a compelling suspicion. Also, the Public Good requires a real investigation -- conspiracy theories are NOT the result of traumatic events -- I'm not particularly traumatized by 9/11 -- it's not as big a deal as the made up war against Iraq and Afghanistan. Conspiracy theories come about when there are a lot of unanswered questions, and non-transparency by those in power.

It's like the Gulf Oil spill: BP breaks thousands of laws. They have lobbyists who had orgies with their regulators. They cut corners on hundreds of safety items on one of the deepest oil drilling platforms in the world. Oil gushes out. BP controls who gets to look at it -- they control the spin on the TV -- the coast guard keeps scientists and news reporters from the scene.

Then we are TOLD it's all solved. BP gets to say; "most was recovered and such-and-such spilled" -- then they get to decide WHO deserves damages from a fund that requires people to sign away their right to sue. The government gives them tax breaks for their penalties and accepts their numbers.

Are YOU comfortable with that situation?

Get used to it.

Building falls down. WE go to war with a bunch of countries -- no questions asked. Spend money -- kill lots of people -- put mercenaries in power -- no questions. No prosecutions.

Federal prosecutors are kept if they didn't investigate -- and fired if they do investigate election frauds. No questions. No prosecutions.

Katrina is not rescued. No questions. No prosecutions.

Torture at Abu Ghraib -- all pinned on 5 low level flunkies -- using techniques that are similar to accusations from GitMo and Afghanistan that involve a deep understanding of the vulnerabilities of Muslim men. 5 are prosecuted -- nobody in charge.

Fallujah is massacred with white phosphorous in retaliation for the death of 4 mercenaries.

$9 Billion in funds for Afghanistan's government go missing without a receipt. No questions. No prosecutions.

CIA and Homeland Security are playing poker with elected officials at the Watergate Hotel with hookers and misplaced funds. No questions. No prosecutions.

Washington Madam hangs herself a week before her "John's list" can be revealed. No questions. No prosecutions.

Weapons depots are left fully stocked with just a padlock in Iraq. The government is divided along sectarian lines. Lawlessness is left to run rampant in the streets but only the oil fields are defended. No questions. No prosecutions.

Sibel Edmonds blows the whistle on nuclear secrets to Turkey. No questions. No prosecutions.

6 Nuclear weapons go missing and 5 are returned. No questions. No prosecutions.

The Lab that said "al Qaeda sent the Anthrax" is the place where the Anthrax came from. The main suspect kills himself. No questions. No prosecutions.

November 2008. After saying the Economy is Healthy, Billionaire FED manager says that they must get a bailout or the economy will fail. No questions. No prosecutions.

BP destroys a gulf. No questions. No prosecutions.


>> I'm really sick of this. The disease is a non-transparent, fascist-run country -- 9/11 was just the symptom. "Nothing to see here folks,... move along."



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


No, sorry, that was a mistake...it wasn't meant for you at all. Please accept apologies. I will try to edit it!



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
If you are looking for motives, this report is very enlightening:

911 Staged to Derail ONI Investigation of Nazi Plunder
www.citizensforgovernmentaccountability.org...



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Which bit are you claiming to be made up

The Towers were made Unique
The Towers would easier than a tradional Building
or
A Tradional Building might have survived

The Designer, had said they were unique.
The Designer, had aknowledged there was a risk of catastophic failure
The Designer, had said they were only designed to withstand low speed impact
from the smaller jets.
And other Construction experts had said the Later.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
However, the FBI is NOT investigating Bin Laden for the crime -- he is not a suspect.

If you know and have proof that someone is involved, why would you need to open up an investigation? You would already have all the pieces.

Instead of being called a suspect, he would be called a criminal. He is being called a criminal.


edit on 23-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

It doesn't work like that you need a grand jury indictment, which wouldnever come the game is fixed, your as full of double talk as the rest the crooks.

In the 70s the US government supported genocide, they lie ,cheat, how do you think the Federal Reservee came about.
Avoid ingnore the facts.



You need a "grand jury indictment?" Gee, really? I guess we will have to wait until some suspicious crime or foul play happens -- won't we?

Then the rebuttal; "It's always been this way..." ... "ignore the facts." What, the sky is blue -- so you are wrong?
The Federal Reserve is a scam set up by the Banksters -- who is going to argue that. The government set up this sweet deal, where we buy OUR MONEY for about 3-4% a year from a privately held company and then Federal Notes are sold to pay for it, which you know, someone gets to trade for us. We privatize the profit and socialize the risk -- that doesn't explain why we shouldn't investigate that -- or 9/11.

In the 70's we did bad things. Then in the 80's. Then in the '90s -- do you see a pattern emerging?

So your solution is: "Don't question 9/11 -- move on." Move on to what? What's next after the gulf and trillions go missing on Wall Street? If I don't have a job, and a future and my kids are competing with the Chinese while there is no tariffs on that GM car being made in China -- wow, I certainly won't have time to investigate 9/11.

And the next False Flag -- sure, that will be terrorists too, and we will of course have to invade Venezuela and kill lots of people to save them from Communism! Does Democracy come with depleted Uranium and a side of fries?

Can't wait for the next big inevitable bad thing I've got to ignore.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by wcitizenHe lied about WMD in Iraq.

..and, this is what its all about. Since Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, that also means he lied about 9/11?!? I don't buy into that. You need more than that to prove your case.
Saddam would not roll over to the US, they couldn't get the hit men in to murder him, it's all about oil don;t you get it, WMD had nothing to do with it in the first place.

Afganastan had nothing to do with it except they had stalled out on the pipe line they were and are still working on this solved all the prolbems, and I think it's going to take another 8 += years to finsh the pipe line by then I don't think it will matter.

The Iran contra who do you think was bring in the best coke, and crack, or did you miss that one all so.

Bush was just a Pawn, just like Obama, didn't you hear him Obama admit it the other day.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


No, sorry, that was a mistake...it wasn't meant for you at all. Please accept apologies. I will try to edit it!



That's cool. No problem then.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Just a reminder...

No other building any where in the world is built in the same manner as those towers.
They were Unique in every way, not just the obvious size but materials and the technique.
So you can't really compare them to any other. And like wise you can't compare any other
Demolition Building to these either, they would behave very differnetly. A tradionally built
building would be a lot harder to knock down, and probably would have survived if it was.

This also adds to the Conspiracy, because there is nothing to compare to.



Have you actually read the statements by the experienced, knowledgeable demolition experts? Have you really considered what they say?

My guess is not, because you are merely pitting your own spurious assumptions against the expert testimony of professional experts, and based on that, dismilssing their statements out of hand.

You are pulling your statements out of thin air and then declaring them to be more valid than those of the professional experts. That is no way to discuss something.


edit on 24-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



>> You replied to ME, yet you put someone else's comment there as if it were mine?
The TOPIC IS; Get over it, there is ZERO evidence for a Conspiracy -- or maybe Zero Evidence for a Demolition -- whatever.

So I'm asking for EVIDENCE of Al Qaeda, Honesty with the Bush administration, or ANYTHING that gives us reason to NOT have a trial.

>> The Demolition Experts that Bush hired to investigate, might have been the same ones that set the charges -- right? Why wasn't the FBI involved in the investigation like the first WTC bombing?

>> Have I read the "Demolition expert's testimony?" Would they be speaking for the Defense or the Prosecution of SOMEONE on trial for 9/11 that I missed?

Not having something to "compare to" does NOT make a conspiracy in my mind -- I don't think that way. But I would say; Building 7 was not a unique building but WTC 1 and 2 were fairly unique.

What is UNIQUE is the level of denial we have in this country. Oh, no, not really -- it's the same thing that happened in Germany about 60 years ago. My bad.



Lol! No, I was referring to the demolition experts who are questioning/challenging the OS. Some people on here just pull an argument out of thin air then use this specious assumption to diss professional experts' opinion on the WTC collapse, as if their specious assumption proves that the experts' opinion is rubbish.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Which bit are you claiming to be made up

The Towers were made Unique
The Towers would easier than a tradional Building
or
A Tradional Building might have survived

The Designer, had said they were unique.
The Designer, had aknowledged there was a risk of catastophic failure
The Designer, had said they were only designed to withstand low speed impact
from the smaller jets.
And other Construction experts had said the Later.


Yes, WTC 1&2 had some unique design
WTC 7 much less

Source:
911research.wtc7.net...

Quote:
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions.
Unquote

Quote:
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.
Unquote:

The WTC should have survived a jet crashing into it and a huge fire, it was designed to withstand such an impact.

What do you mean by traditional building, and how would that have had a better chance of withstanding such an impact and fire? .






edit on 24-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Just a reminder...

No other building any where in the world is built in the same manner as those towers.
They were Unique in every way, not just the obvious size but materials and the technique.
So you can't really compare them to any other. And like wise you can't compare any other
Demolition Building to these either, they would behave very differnetly. A tradionally built
building would be a lot harder to knock down, and probably would have survived if it was.

This also adds to the Conspiracy, because there is nothing to compare to.



This is why this design needs to be studied, and understood as to it defect if any so such a thing of this sort can never happen again, why is this not being done, you don;t close the books on learning, progress, not unless we are a oppressed country to bow down to lies. Are we going to build better buildings or be oppressed by tyrants that tell us how, and when to wipe our arsess.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Which bit are you claiming to be made up

The Towers were made Unique
The Towers would easier than a tradional Building
or
A Tradional Building might have survived

The Designer, had said they were unique.
The Designer, had aknowledged there was a risk of catastophic failure
The Designer, had said they were only designed to withstand low speed impact
from the smaller jets.
And other Construction experts had said the Later.


More information from the same source.

Quote:
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE.

Unquote



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 
it's not luck God is with Islam, I know for certain it would take more than luck to get 50 virgins together all in one place, luck has nothing to do with it.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Which bit are you claiming to be made up

The Towers were made Unique
The Towers would easier than a tradional Building
or
A Tradional Building might have survived

The Designer, had said they were unique.
The Designer, had aknowledged there was a risk of catastophic failure
The Designer, had said they were only designed to withstand low speed impact
from the smaller jets.
And other Construction experts had said the Later.


From the same report:

Quote:

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Unquote:



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by wcitizen
 
it's not luck God is with Islam, I know for certain it would take more than luck to get 50 virgins together all in one place, luck has nothing to do with it.



So you are saying that God helped the terrorists to pull this off and commit mass murder because they are muslims???



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Just a reminder...

No other building any where in the world is built in the same manner as those towers.
They were Unique in every way, not just the obvious size but materials and the technique.
So you can't really compare them to any other. And like wise you can't compare any other
Demolition Building to these either, they would behave very differnetly. A tradionally built
building would be a lot harder to knock down, and probably would have survived if it was.

This also adds to the Conspiracy, because there is nothing to compare to.



This is why this design needs to be studied, and understood as to it defect if any so such a thing of this sort can never happen again, why is this not being done, you don;t close the books on learning, progress, not unless we are a oppressed country to bow down to lies. Are we going to build better buildings or be oppressed by tyrants that tell us how, and when to wipe our arsess.



Well, you can't build a building to withstand a controlled demolition.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by nickspm
The FBI has come out and said that they don't have any evidence linking Osama bin laden with 9/11.

When I read that a white van full of explosives was pulled over at the entrance of the George Washington Bridge on 9/11, it seemed suspicious. When the story seemed to disappear from the mainstream news quickly, it seemed even more suspicious to me. Then I read that the van was driven by the Sivan Kurzberg, an Israeli. This seems to be the strongest evidence that I've seen linking Israel with 9/11. I wonder where Sivan and his brother Paul are living now precisely. They are presumably still living back in Israel, since they were released and sent back after the attacks.



Yep, and even more so given that the there was a picture on the side of the of the twin towers and an airplane



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners


Pity he was so wrong about that claim - he also died when the planes bought the WTC down.




top topics



 
61
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join