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: 50
61
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 

You have to take issue with LIVE news, the video is self-explanatory. There are plenty of others...I will be happy to introduce you to them.
I take it you have a problem with truthers? Perhaps you could relate YOUR version of the truth. But, why should I trust you when you dispute our live news accounts, and those of the NYFD that were on the scene?
Where exactly do you get YOUR news?




posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
There do seem to be separate reports of a white van being pulled over in the vicinity of the George Washington Bridge packed with large amounts of explosives on 9/11. The information has two separate sources on one network alone. The same basic information is then reported on another network using quite different language altogether. As a result I find the information regarding the white vans and the explosives highly credible.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
 



I think you're right. We should now focus on things with evidences. I say we start pushing for prosecution of George W Bush for his war crimes on Iraq. How about that. Oh we ain't done yet!



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


Where do I get my news.......

From members of the FDNY (not NYFD) who were there that day. Not from youtube, not from Dan Blather, from men who were actually there that day.

Now, my "version" of the truth.....

Is not a "version", its what happened that day based on the actual evidence and not the musing/rantings/suppositions made by people with an agenda.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by wisdomnotemotion
reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
 



I think you're right. We should now focus on things with evidences. I say we start pushing for prosecution of George W Bush for his war crimes on Iraq. How about that. Oh we ain't done yet!


This has been my point all along !
And hey, who knows what will turn up if someone gets charged? Somebody may want to turn over info to avoid a treason charge
And maybe it'll turn out I'm wrong and bush,cheney, rice, etc.. were in on 9/11.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 

I think we heard from some of these emergency personnel on the video I linked. In their OWN words.
Can you do the same? Or do I just have to trust you?



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


just to show a comparison...the term freefall is a term used in demolitions...even though it does not mean the literal sense of absolute freefall.

so lets watch shall we...



now the important part is watch the corner comparisons....you will see the stucture being taken out....this is not normal demolition as the windows are still in the building.....normally all windows are removed in CD's but of course this was not a normal CD was it.

now you can state freefall all you may like...but please learn what the term is in referemce to under CD's and it might help when people are stating freefall....as most people understand that there is a period of accerleration and also resistance collectively as the building impacts on the way down.
there is timing of dentonation and explosives to take into account....
I am not going to stoop to your level of generalising all debunkers in one catagory....by sticking you into one catagory as a debunker....but me being a structural Engineer....do not believe these buildings came down due to fire...or the planes alone....and believe me as structural engineers we are not infalible...but we do try and do our best in taking most senarios into account.
STEEL just does not fall in upon itself without assistance....i could go to indepth detail about the mass and the way the upper part turns to dust...before it even impacts the stable structure below but it has been stated in many places and other threads throughtout ATS.
but It looks like this so called nonsense is not going to go away until the truth comes out...and the truth does not lay in the OS.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

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



So what are you suggesting happened?
Where are the all the officers and other city workers to testify to this?



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


After watching this video, I do not see how anybody can argue that building 7 was anything other than a controlled demolition. More and more it seems like the 'debunkers' here on ATS are refusing to face facts....



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 

I am suggesting that a lot of what happened on 911 got covered up, witnesses intimidated or killed if they couldn't be intimidated, that Israeli Mossad had a major part in it, that some sort of explosives were used extensively.
In other words, business as usual for those in the business of false flags and terror operations.
How about you? What do you think?



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


I can't believe some people still think that the steel turned to dust... It's a preposterous idea. The steel crashing down did not just evaporate into the air. It continued with the power of gravity and didn't stop till the ground resisted it.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


Now, go back and find those same people then ask them if they still think there were bombs that day. For the most part, you will get much different answers than in your video.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


What is your basis for this claim?



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 


Talking to members of the FDNY that survived that day. Most of them get really snipy about their statements being taken out of context. Not to mention, not ONE of them mentioned bombs or explosives in their official statements.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Can you please provide some documentation?

In the meantime, spend some time on this site.
firefightersfor911truth.org...



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 


There is a nice little archive of their statements online. I will let you find it.

As for your website, Ive spent more time on that one than I care to remember. Have any of the FDNY members that were there that day signed up for it yet? Other than retired members who WERENT there?



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by jfj123
 

I am suggesting that a lot of what happened on 911 got covered up,


To what end?


witnesses intimidated or killed if they couldn't be intimidated,

Which witnesses have been killed?


that Israeli Mossad had a major part in it, that some sort of explosives were used extensively.

Why?
Also, can you provide evidence to suggest the they had a "major part in it and explosives were used extensively?


In other words, business as usual for those in the business of false flags and terror operations.
How about you? What do you think?

Honestly I don't think much of the trucks. There would be no reason to cover up trucks that exploded but not planes exploding. No reason for it. In fact, if it was a conspiracy, trucks and planes blowing up would create more terror.

My OPINION is that there was a 2 part cover up.
1) A cover up of massive incompetence by the government.
2) A cover up regarding the substandard building practices used in the WTC's and many other buildings throughout the area.

Beyond those 2 things, I don't believe the the US government or elements thereof were the architects of 9/11 nor was there complicity or collusion regarding the attacks.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by plube
 


I can't believe some people still think that the steel turned to dust... It's a preposterous idea. The steel crashing down did not just evaporate into the air. It continued with the power of gravity and didn't stop till the ground resisted it.

If you're suggesting that the buildings fell at free fall speed, they did not. This has been proven.
Please stop perpitrating this falsehood.



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by jambatrumpet
 


Talking to members of the FDNY that survived that day. Most of them get really snipy about their statements being taken out of context. Not to mention, not ONE of them mentioned bombs or explosives in their official statements.


Just watch. What truthers will now claim is that those people have been threatened into silence. Of course they won't provide any evidence of this but apparently that is ok



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by plube
 


I can't believe some people still think that the steel turned to dust... It's a preposterous idea. The steel crashing down did not just evaporate into the air. It continued with the power of gravity and didn't stop till the ground resisted it.

If you're suggesting that the buildings fell at free fall speed, they did not. This has been proven.
Please stop perpitrating this falsehood.


I wasn't suggesting that at all. I was just saying that the metal didn't vaporize during the collapse. I've seen it proved many times that the collapse was a number of seconds slower than free-fall.




top topics



 
61
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join