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: 55
61
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

I have read all of your posts. For me, the preponderance of evidence points to a controlled demolition of, at least, WTC 7.

I am glad you have the satisfaction of faith in the official story of the events of 911.

For me, there are simply too many inconsistencies to believe it entirely factual.

In my opinion, there is enough information in this thread alone to convince any rational person to question the OS.

Your arguments, though enthusiastic, have not convinced me. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.




posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
The FBI is in a tricky situation. They facilitated terrorist operations during the first WTC bombing in '93. Then on 9/11, the FBI got hold of several guys that were caught in a van with a load of explosives not that far from the WTC attacks. However, because the guys with the van full of explosives were--as it turned out--Israeli, the FBI was under a great deal of pressure to release them to be sent back to Israel. That's what the FBI did.

The Bush Administration and now the Obama Administration have had to keep spinning the Osama bin Laden version of events: the official story. Essentially the FBI is in a Catch-22. They can't go after Israelis. It would be career suicide. At the same time they are supposed to be linking 9/11 with OBL, but the hard evidence just doesn't appear to be there, at least not according to the FBI.



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


your right but after someone keeps putting their foot in their mouth over and over and over ....it gets to be downright insulting in itself....and please dont go playing the big man J i have seen you get frustrated to...and you stiill take peoples comments and reduce them ti tiny little snippits which takes them totally out of context.
but least i give people credit where credit is due where you just try to make people look like they are being nasty by taking comments right out of context.
And you just keep using a single source for your rebuttles which is does not do anything...you can keep quoting the NIST report but I think EVERYONE knows at this point it was poorly done without all info needed to make a fair report...and if you look around you will see the truth movement is making progress and will you accept the truth....Probably not as your in sooooo much denial of the truth....but it is nice to see you trying to help your friend Verm.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I am a structural Engineer Verm your video is absolute hogwash and you have not one single ounce of structural integrity or one single idea about cores or Steel building construction....there is a complete and golbal structural failure across the entire building...not in one area.....if you notice the top boxed section it actually sinks into the centre of the building...on the right..but your blind so you keep your imagination going...cause it obviously makes you feel better.
like i said if you look around you will see that the whole OS is falling apart in all aspects....
and if you bother to read you would there is so much first hand evidence of the explosions that is is unreal.
but you waver back and forth so much that is is just to make you feel better in yourself....so please start to use some logic...and i will keep pushing officials for the truth.....cause that is what i do.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jambatrumpet

Jeff: Yes? CDI: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.
Jeff: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.
CDI: Ok.
Jeff: Bye.
CDI: Bye.
Audio here: www.pumpitout.com...

Pull it means to actually pull the building down with cables as in building 6.
Just thought you might be interested.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lord Jules
reply to post by jfj123
 


It's ridiculous to assume that when Silverstein said "pull it" he was referring to pulling fire fighters out of the building. Since when did he have the authority to remove fire fighters from a building? And since when does anyone refer to fire fighters as "it" ?


Watch the video and it'll answer your questions.
www.liveleak.com...

You're simply taking what was said out of context. In addition, you're applying terminology to explosives demolition that simply doesn't exist in the industry. Please re-read my previous post.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jambatrumpet

I'm just wondering...If you don't believe the governments official story, why would you believe what the FBI says? If this conspiracy is as far reaching as you say it is, how can you accept any official statement or document as true?


I think you are missing the point. The fact that the OS and the FBI are not on the same page is evidence that there IS a conspiracy...just maybe not as far reaching as many assume...
edit on 10-10-2010 by jambatrumpet because: (no reason given)

So let me get this straight. A government so powerful they can pull off 9/11 but not powerful enough to get the FBI on board? That makes no sense at all !



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by FelicityJones
I'd like to know who controlled demo'd the buildings. Symmetrical free fall collapse can only occur when multiple support columns that span the floor are severed simultaneously.

Again, they didn't fall at freefall speed.
This is the problem with you truthers ! You keep repeating the same things that have been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over !



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by jfj123
 

And you just keep using a single source for your rebuttles which is does not do anything

Incorrect. I've used a number of different sources for various postings.


...you can keep quoting the NIST report but I think EVERYONE knows at this point it was poorly done without all info needed to make a fair report..

Is their report perfect? No of course not ! Something like this has never happened before so give them a little credit for doing such a good job under the circumstances. Could you have done better? Have you performed the necessary physics and structural calculations that could dispute their findings?


.and if you look around you will see the truth movement is making progress and will you accept the truth....Probably not as your in sooooo much denial of the truth....but it is nice to see you trying to help your friend Verm.

Don't know verm but tend to agree with his/her statements.
Again, could you please post the truth movements official story? As I've said, if you have a strong scientific argument to contradict the official story, please post it. I've asked throughout the last 54 pages but noone has posted anything about the truther official story......now we must ask ourselves why not? Why wouldn't there be an official story if science supports one?



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 

Oh, I see. So, because you say so, I should completely ignore all the common sense I was raised with and just accept that you are right. It makes the truther movement sound more like a religion to me.

Anyone can see that the eastern portion of WTC 7 "fell" into the building. I mean, that is empirically a fact. I pointed out in my video that you can see exactly where it started to fail. There happens to be an ejection exactly below where the penthouse caves in? Oh, that's just a coincidence I bet. The government must have engineered it to keep people away from the truth. And then you can clearly see that the eastern portion deforms slightly as the building starts to fall. Maybe it's because the floors in that area were completely collapsed? Oh, but it must be my imagination. I have to be an engineer to see the truth of things (since engineers are made of magic).

So this is my working idea of things:
OS supporters = Atheists
Truthers = Christians
Government = Satan
Engineers (but only the ones that support the truthers) = Priests

Maybe I'm botching the comparison here, but honestly this is how it is coming out to me. The arguments always seem to boil down to "I'm right and you're wrong, and if you don't accept my view then you'll burn in (insert flaming religious punishment here)." I mean, a lot of truthers do think that OS supporters don't even deserve to live, right? They're all too easy to brainwash, so they might as well be thrown in prison while the truthers live in their overthrown government system of utopia. But that is taking the exaggeration of the movement a little too far.
edit on 11-10-2010 by Varemia because: fixed reply



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Again, they didn't fall at freefall speed.
This is the problem with you truthers ! You keep repeating the same things that have been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over !


And by simply watching the videos of WTC 1&2 collapsing it can be clearly seen the debris falling off the buildings is falling at freefall speed, and both buildings are falling slower than that, so they are falling slower than free fall speed. But truthers refuse to accept reality by watching the videos, they prefer to visit damn fool conspiracy theory sites that state the "buildings fell at free fall speed" so they believe that lie!



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TetsuoIronMan
OP I think you are missing the point of what "TRUTHERS" are all about. There are too many holes in the official story, we just want to uncover the truth of what happened that day.
There is no hard evidence to implicate Osama Bin Laden as the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks, and the FBI have admitted this.
www.fbi.gov...
In the above link you can clearly see the FBI's most wanted page for Bin Laden. Notice that he is not wanted for the crimes committed on 9/11, now surely 9 years later they would have updated the page by now if they actually had any evidence snip........


Before you draw any conclusions from the crimes listed on the Most Wanted poster you should take the time to consider this statement from the same FBI website:


The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
www.fbi.gov...

That statement alone negates your argument that the FBI poster means that he is not wanted for the 9/11 terrorist attack. Osama has not been Indicted for that yet. IF he was indicted and then remained free, 9/11 would also be added to his poster.

Please let me know if this changes your opinion in any way. Even if it is only regarding your post that I quoted. Thanks


edit on 10/11/2010 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


You are so wrong that has not been proven over and over...and i provided Three good papers that you choose not to read....and your very own NIST report even explains it was free fall in the first few seconds and then resistance takes over...but it was still within what would be condidered freefall as far as demolition has been concerned....you choose also just like verm to not look at the data that others provide you even though a lot of us have the decency to look at the info you provide and then speak on it.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
and the fact NO STEEL structucture built around a central core has EVER suffered Global collapse.


Funny how the 2 streel structures that were hit by high speed jetliners DID suffer collapse - a fact that you ignore....


.the building 7 was 100% brought down by a controlled demolition.


and you are also wrong there - how and when did they install the tonnes of explosives needed, and no one noticed?



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by jfj123
 


and your very own NIST report even explains it was free fall in the first few seconds and then resistance takes over...but it was still within what would be condidered freefall

Freefall is free fall. Speeds at less than freefall are speed less than freefall. It's so simple !
And yes I know the NIST mentioned that a PORTION of the fall, of WTC 7 fell at actual freefall speed but not the entire collapse which is my whole point when someone makes a blanket statement like, "WTC 7 fell at freefall speed".


as far as demolition has been concerned....you choose also just like verm to not look at the data that others provide you even though a lot of us have the decency to look at the info you provide and then speak on it.

Did you look at all the data I provided????
I'm not a big fan of link chasing. I don't mind verifying what is posted but I don't want to go to a different site to come back and post about it. Have the discussion here or don't have it.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
dereks-


Here is an example of a top-down controlled demolition.
Top-down demolitions are quite different from the more common
(at least in the U.S.) bottom-up demolitions.


Top-down controlled demolition below:


www.youtube.com...


Note that much of the building debris on the video hits the ground before the building has finished falling down.

A top-down controlled detonation means that the top of the building is met with resistance from below as the building falls. This resistance below means that it takes longer for the building to fall--certainly a bit longer than a bottom-up controlled demolition, which would fall at a faster speed--the speed of free fall.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


They should check the State Department website. On the terrorism section, Osama is listed as wanted in connection with the attacks on 9/11/01.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join