It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 49
61
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 06:49 AM

Originally posted by spiritualzombie

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
To answer your question of why this matters... What is the probability that you can hit a building with a plane, and hit it so perfectly that it doesn't collapse in pieces or fall toward the corner that took the most direct hit, but instead fall straight down within 90 minutes. What are the chances of that?
edit on 4-10-2010 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)

The chance is 100 % as it happened.
Your interpretation of the facts, doesn't change them only how you view them. Again, this is the problem with lay people trying to analyze what happened to those buildings.

Your answer is that the chances are 100% because that's what happened???
Would you say the chances of a magician really pulling a rabbit out of his magic hat is 100% because you saw it happen? Does David Copperfield actually have the ability to fly because that's what you saw?

I'm done with this guy...

Is there anyone of intelligence who can answer my question above. Again, a person of INTELLIGENCE please. What is the probability that you can hit a building with a plane, and hit it so perfectly that it doesn't collapse in pieces or fall toward the corner that took the most direct hit, but instead fall straight down within 90 minutes. And pull this off two times in a row? And then cause a third building nearby to collapse at free-fall speed 6 hours later? What are the chances of that?

Waiting for a plausible scientific answer....
edit on 4-10-2010 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)
1. Are you trying to say that building should have collapsed when the plane hit it? Why do Truthers constantly ignore the unique design of the buildings?
2. Very low probability, probably the same chance as finding buildings with the same design as the Twin Towers, but that's not really an argument against the Official Story. To be honest, this is really no different than creationists saying that the probability of life forming on earth was very unlikely, therefore god did it.
3. Building 7 didn't fall at free fall speed, why Truthers continue to believe this is beyond me. It may have fell at a period of free fall but that's it, unless you believe that explosives were detonated as the building was collapsing to the ground, which is kind of redundant and downright stupid, but hey, that's just what they want to you think right?

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 09:25 AM
It will go on forever because cynical, greedy people know how easy it is to get rich publishing books and making nonsense "documentaries" that make naive people like "truthers" believe they are part of a secret club of special people who know the truth. When, in fact, they are merely of below average intelligence and have little knowledge of how things actually work in the real world. This is why they blindly recite scientific-sounding nonsense like "Jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel".
Well, for one thing, neither does coal, though they use coal to melt steel in furnaces. For another steel beams supporting hundreds of thousands of tons of weight do not have to even come close to melting to fail. However, the sites/documentaries that point out these things and (unlike the "truth" movement), use reproducable, scientific methodology are dismissed by these "people" as "government disinformation" The American government cannot travel back in time to re-write the laws of physics, no matter how desperate you are to believe in their sinister powers. 911 was an outside job, because only outsiders could have pulled it off without screwing it up royally.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 09:32 AM
To the guy asking the odds of the buildings falling straight down...You have watched too many small brick chimneys being demolished and have the wrong idea. Those buildings could have only fallen straight down. You couldn't make them fall over like dominoes even if you planned to. For that to happen, the whole weight of the building would have to be taken on one edge. Even if the building were to lean to the point of failure, as soon as it began to fail, it would fall straight down with minimal lateral movement. The whole "truther" movement is based on similar misunderstandings.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 10:38 AM

There was nothing unique in the construction of the WTC Towers. In fact, from Wikipedia....

"The first building to apply the tube-frame construction was the DeWitt-Chestnut apartment building which Khan designed and was completed in Chicago by 1963.[2] This laid the foundations for the tube structures of many other later skyscrapers, including his own John Hancock Center and Willis Tower, and can been seen in the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.[3] The strong influence of tube structure design is also evident in the construction of the current tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa.[4]"

en.wikipedia.org...

Additionally, here are some videos of buildings NOT collapsing straight down.

I see you just joined. Are you here to help us find the truth?

edit on 6-10-2010 by Stewie because: Video failure

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 10:46 AM

*cough*

You say "oh, the WTC construction wasn't unique in any way, all these other high-rise buildings have it," and then you go ahead and show two building collapse videos that were nothing even similar to the design of the WTC. Good show.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:25 AM

Thank you, I hope you get over your illness.

If you take the time to read, you will find that a certain ally claimed that buildings don't fall over like dominoes, or some such nonsense. I provided evidence (the kind you are always insisting doesn't exist for us truthers) for your pleasure. I am glad you found it helpful.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:26 AM

lol this is endless fun

the truth ? uh definition please

play nice with the new guy he has a real quality common sense something definately lacking here

this 9/11 movement only survives by clutching and hanging onto misconstrued under analyzed mumbo jumbo .

new freind you will proly engage at least one truther and find your self surrounded by high fiving wanna be psuedo detectives there is no hope of reasoning with these truthers.

WATCH.... wheres my proof right

good luck newbie

edit on 6-10-2010 by triplescorpio because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:27 AM

And, btw,

I am perplexed why you don't point out the error of the poster I was replying to? Agenda much?

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:33 AM

Do you want the definition of "truth"? Or, the truth about 911?

I believe we have gotten much closer to the truth, no thanks to our boys and girls in D.C. In fact, I am sure they would love for this chatter to just go away. But, it seems to be getting louder, gradually building to a crescendo of voices from around the world. TELL THE TRUTH!

They (you know who) will have to nuke 'em. Lot's of mini-nukes strategically placed. BOOM, BOOM, BOOM...

No more truthers.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 12:34 PM

LOL yeah yeah more more ive turned a new leaf on this topic

no more anger just entertainment now.

as far as truth goes i dont feel i will get a quality definition on this board but this is great fun keep up the good fight !!!

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 01:01 PM

For your information, I'm not on anyone's "side", and am not going to be held accountable for the comments of people who are against your theories. His point anyway was that buildings "structured like the WTC buildings" do not topple like dominoes. Your videos showed buildings built entirely different that could create effective pivots as they collapsed. There wasn't any semblance of that kind of structural strength in the WTC designs. Once it begins to fail, the steel crumples and collapses in on itself like crazy.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 01:02 PM
Simply reading about the two Israeli brothers that were caught at the entrance of the George Washington Bridge with a van full of explosives on 9/11 (Paul and Sivan Kurzberg) has been enough, along with other information I've read, to convince me that Israel was intimately involved in the attacks--and that these findings were poorly covered up by our own government.

I don't see how anyone that looked at that information about the Kurzberg brothers could realistically come to any other logical conclusion. However, some people are aware of that evidence and see the importance of discrediting that account. That's understandable. They are possibly more interested in maintaining an agenda than wanting other people to know the truth.

Regardless, it's still a free country--sort of--and people are free to believe as they like. If people want to believe that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11 with his 19 hijackers--even though seven of the alleged hijackers were later found to be alive--that's fine with me. To me the evidence I've seen points more in the direction of Israel being behind it, but it's ok to disagree. Life would be dull if we all agreed about everything. I'm glad we don't.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 01:09 PM
an agenda no one hear is that cool paranoia is a sickness and can be dangerous if uncontrolled please see a doctor!

this is toooo good please go on

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 01:15 PM

Good to see people on the ball here Nick....and if you read this thread i have put together so far it might give some insight....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and i do agree everyone definately is entitled to their own opinions....and that is the best part of having the freedom to speak of what you think....and that is the very thing that will leads us to the truth...I HOPE.
edit on 013131p://f15Wednesday by plube because: speeeel

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 04:16 PM
plube,

I appreciate that. You've done some thorough research. It will take some time for me to really study what you've got here. It looks like I will be learning a lot more than I already know on this subject.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 04:28 PM

Umm, you might want to do some better (or more thorough anyway) research. The original report was that the bomb sniffing dogs reacted as if there were explosives in the van. That radio call went out and was picked up by the AP. Less than ten minutes later, another radio call went out saying that there were NO explosives in said vehicle...that call was also picked up by AP and put out on its wires. Truthers, however, are ignorant of that fact.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 04:46 PM

Truthers are ignorant of WHAT fact?

Pretty vague with YOUR facts. Here is the NYFD, and some other pertinent info.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 04:53 PM
vipertech0596-

Yes there were some retractions. Some of those had to do with another van found I believe.

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 06:33 PM
This is some debate.

I think a lot of people are focusing on the wrong issues. Without being there you will gain little from
video, audio and photo evidence without the thought that it has been interfered with.

I would focus more on the actual event. The USA being the most "powerful" and secure country in the world has managed to be infiltrated by 19 terrorists, who simultaneously managed to hijack planes with limited passengers on board, and with pin point accuracy bring down the Twin Towers. I have seen both side of this argument and neither has solid proof.

The OS is a version that COULD be presented by people who have something to hide and therefore the story would be made to fit a set of circumstances in their favor.

The Truthers are passionate but lack the organization and leadership along with hard factual evidence to go to battle effectively. Unfortunately they have become intertwined with the hack side of "Conspiracy Theory"

I must quote Sherlock Holmes and say:

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 06:38 PM
Read the notes attached to that video. It is discussing the same van. It also contains the same inaccuracies about the "dancing Israelis" BTW, the Israelis did not show up until after the first tower had been hit.

new topics

top topics

61