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.

 

Do we really need to dissect every little thing about 911

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Do we really need to take apart every little thing about 911? Just look at this video.

www.youtube.com...

Tell me you do not see and hear a sequence of explosions turning the building into fine dust floor by floor. I am curious how anybody is going to explain a plane impacting a building and fires doing THAT.

What do we need threads about "no planes theories" or other theories that cant be backed up for and will only be used by "debunkers" to make the claim that the official tale must be true, if it turns out one little thing the opposition said turns out to be false.




posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Osers will just say "the explosions you hear are the floors pancaking... and something something something... bin ladin.. something.. you arrogant punks.... something"



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Well ...you could accept the official version which means that a couple of rag heads just pwned 350 million people who just happen to be the the "Only Biggest Super duper pppppower on the Planet"..........
Which would be the most pathetic event in the history of the universe...

If I was American I would stay away from the "rag tag band of rebels" excuse for 911..if for no other reason than its embarassing as hell to be butt whupped like that by such a disproportionally smaller sized foe...
One might guess God must really not like America to let something like that happen, heck he must have been HELPING those little guys...how else can you explain their success against such odds?

kind of like amoeba and goliath....
(except the amoeba didn't send his best friend of to get killed so he could sleep with his wife...)
edit on 15-11-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
In other words there is no point arguing with a troll.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Do we have to argue about every little thing about 911?

Watch really closely at this video how this one thing happens. I don't know how anyone can disagree with me



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
...some folks might "need" to - like those whose loved ones died that day or have died since from breathing the crap in the air and even those who were just there in the city that day and were traumatised by it...

...but, imo, most folks just "want" to dissect it over and over again or debunk whatever whenever because they enjoy it or believe they're right or believe they'll make a difference...

...back when jfk was assassinated, quite a few influential folks thought they could force the government's hand and make them tell the truth - but - well, that hasnt happened yet and i figured the same will be true of 09.11.01...



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666Tell me you do not see and hear a sequence of explosions turning the building into fine dust floor by floor.


Okay.

I do not see and hear a sequence of explosions turning the building into fine dust floor by floor.

Ive said this elsewhere here; all I see and hear is caused by the kinetic energy of lots of heavy stuff crashing into more heavy stuff, no discernible concussive pops, bangs or otherwise tell-tale sounds of explosives. Just one almighty roar.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saytan75

Originally posted by Cassius666Tell me you do not see and hear a sequence of explosions turning the building into fine dust floor by floor.


Okay.

I do not see and hear a sequence of explosions turning the building into fine dust floor by floor.

Ive said this elsewhere here; all I see and hear is caused by the kinetic energy of lots of heavy stuff crashing into more heavy stuff, no discernible concussive pops, bangs or otherwise tell-tale sounds of explosives. Just one almighty roar.


So you are basically saying you want to believe what you want to believe instead of what you see. Which means you can not be convinced with arguments and reason.

Trying to convince that kind of people is a mood point, for they will not aknowledge anything you present them. You tell them it wasnt fires, only explosives can do that. They reply it was the fires. You tell them nothing hit WTC 7 and the fires did not burn hot enough. They reply it was the fires. You tell them apart from the fact the fires did not NEARLY burn hot enough to collapse building 7, fires cant take out all the support columns at the same time for the building to implode in its own footprint, they still keep insisting it was the fires.

They cant be convnced because they do not want to be convinced. They wont aknowledge any arguments you make, but will jump on anything that turns out to be untrue and will say there was no holocaust because the no planes theory was wrong.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Belief has no impact on my auditory and perceptive faculties; I don't mean to sound patronizing or facetious, but I know perfectly well that hard, fast moving, heavy objects coming to a sudden stop by hitting more objects of the same type will make a noise.
I've attended demolitions and seen countless footage of demolitions; yet all of the WTC collapse footage has not been able match the distinctive, loud concussive reports that I have heard and seen before. I can always be convinced with good arguments and reason derived through evidence, but I can't deny what two of my five senses tell me, and they seem to be working just fine.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saytan75
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Belief has no impact on my auditory and perceptive faculties


Yes it has. Big time. You are not the only one who can look up demolitions of buildings on youtube. The ones I saw did not sound like a torrent of explosions when they came down. They did not desintegrate in midair either, but on impact. But like I said, telling those who see an Orange where an apple is cant be convinced if they dont want to be convinced.

And it kind of sounded like the mic of the camera was overwhelmed by the noise. I wonder how loud it really was.

But if you have an explanation on how very minor office fires on the upper floors caused WTC 7 to collapse in its own footprint, that does not involve explosives taking out the support structures simulatneously, I am curious to hear it.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Well considering 99% of structural engineers, demolitions experts, and other experts have analyzed the footage available and that many debunking conspiracy theory books and article have been written, I would say that the "other side" isn't as clueless as you might believe.

Add on to that Occam's Razor, whistleblowing, human nature, practicality/feasibility, and tons of other obvious factors and you get a situation where most of the people that are the fiercest defenders of logic and skeptical analysis do not buy into all of the conspiracy theories, especially the more out there ones.

Obviously my opinion differs from that of a lot of people here, but that comes with the environment. If I go to Something Awful or another major forum that is more general in nature, you will be a lot harder pressed to find truthers. If I bring this up at an academic panel, I'd likely be dismissed entirely. Do I think that's appropriate of them? Probably not, but it's pragmatic. It's a lot more complicated from both sides of the spectrum and we all need to learn to come together and question our views that we may hold implicit.

Back in high school I was an ardent truther. Now I think it's all smoke and mirrors. Back then though I thought everyone else was too dumb to see the "truth" and that all the "sheeple" were being brainwashed through government propaganda and general ignorance. So I genuinely dislike people saying "How can anyone believe it was actually terrorists!? All these sheeple!" because in reality there are a lot of really smart people out there who have come to the opposite conclusion. Life is never so simple and is usually not so black-and-white either.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evanescence
Well considering 99% of structural engineers, demolitions experts, and other experts have analyzed the footage available and that many debunking conspiracy theory books and article have been written, I would say that the "other side" isn't as clueless as you might believe.

Add on to that Occam's Razor, whistleblowing, human nature, practicality/feasibility, and tons of other obvious factors and you get a situation where most of the people that are the fiercest defenders of logic and skeptical analysis do not buy into all of the conspiracy theories, especially the more out there ones.

Obviously my opinion differs from that of a lot of people here, but that comes with the environment. If I go to Something Awful or another major forum that is more general in nature, you will be a lot harder pressed to find truthers. If I bring this up at an academic panel, I'd likely be dismissed entirely. Do I think that's appropriate of them? Probably not, but it's pragmatic. It's a lot more complicated from both sides of the spectrum and we all need to learn to come together and question our views that we may hold implicit.

Back in high school I was an ardent truther. Now I think it's all smoke and mirrors. Back then though I thought everyone else was too dumb to see the "truth" and that all the "sheeple" were being brainwashed through government propaganda and general ignorance. So I genuinely dislike people saying "How can anyone believe it was actually terrorists!? All these sheeple!" because in reality there are a lot of really smart people out there who have come to the opposite conclusion. Life is never so simple and is usually not so black-and-white either.


It's definitely not just one way or the other. It's too bad that if you lean one way though, you're automatically lumped together with, "UFOs hit the towers!"

It would probably be easier to convince the general public of the 'truth' if the wild accusations weren't so rampant. "The official story isn't 100%, here are the blatant inconsistencies.. draw your own conclusions and demand a reopening of the investigation"

Someone needs to be held accountable for the horrendous mistakes made (considering that maybe it's not a huge elaborate plot), at the very least. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it bugs me that no one in office or the military got fired for failing the American people.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evanescence
Well considering 99% of structural engineers, demolitions experts, and other experts have analyzed the footage available and that many debunking conspiracy theory books and article have been written, I would say that the "other side" isn't as clueless as you might believe.



I am not aware of any experts outside the official report supporting the official report. I studied at a German university. I talked to students in related fields, they couldnt explain the WTC 7 collapse, or why the towers exploded from jetfuel fire. I tried to talked to professors in related fields, they couldnt explain it either.

And that was at a German university, you know, the people America turns to when they need to tackle something their guys dont get quite done yet, like going to the moon.

Life might not always black and white, but sometimes it is. Sometimes its 1 or 0 .
edit on 15-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
Someone needs to be held accountable for the horrendous mistakes made (considering that maybe it's not a huge elaborate plot), at the very least. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it bugs me that no one in office or the military got fired for failing the American people.


I have mixed emotions on that front. On the one hand, stuff happens and we need to learn that security theater and trying to protect everyone from everything (at the cost of our liberties) is not a logical solution to an infrequent problem that affects .00001% of the U.S. population directly. I mean it's like all that ruckus after Columbine. NO AMOUNT of security will prevent students from hurting others and none but the most stringent (violating and impractical) will prevent people from killing others in such location en masse. Honestly the best cure for this is reforming society as a whole, human nature, not trying to patch the problem with ridiculous and ersatz "security."

Yet if there were significant failings (and of course there were), we need to find those responsible and judge them appropriately without making it into a witch hunt or playing the "blame game."

And don't get me started on responsibility for situations like this. Bush is a war criminal with his false pretense war in Iraq and yet he lives the high life (ghost)writing about Kanye West insulting him as his lowest point. Nixon got pardoned by Ford after the real conspiracies he orchestrated in office and his War on Drugs has cost the nation millions of livelihoods and untold economic losses.

Powerful people can get away with all sorts of stuff a lot of the time. It's a fact of life and has nothing to do with the NWO or Illuminati. He has influence so it's not as easy for people to target him unfortunately.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Yes we do,, women and men shouldn't have too jump out of skyscrapers,,, or make a desicion to stay and burn, because they only went to work that day to do their jobs, now they cannot,, so we must take on the responsibility for them to understand why they had too, so that we might judge richoiusly those responsible, because it wasn't right nor just for the people who lost their lives that day but at least give us a truth that we can all understand so we all may be at peace with this miscarrage of justice, and until that day comes, only then can a healing begin.
Nine years and still counting.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

I am not aware of any experts outside the official report supporting the official report. I studied at a German university. I talked to students in related fields, they couldnt explain the WTC 7 collapse, or why the towers exploded from jetfuel fire. I tried to talked to professors in related fields, they couldnt explain it either.


Please don't just dismiss my writings here without question, this is a serious question I need you to respond to so I can make sure I am following your thinking.

Wikipedia - WTC Controlled Demolition CTs

That is a link to Wikipedia with many links to sources (governmental and non-governmental) that support the official hypothesis for the collapse of the WTC towers.

Besides several individual professors/experts cited there (including an MIT expert) is also the American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Institution of Structural Engineers, and Popular Mechanics.

Now okay, let's breathe deeply and sort this out. There are professors in the camp that believes the WTC towers were a controlled demolition. However, there are many more that differ from that view, including both professional societies, governmental institutions, and other experts in the field.

Your two points of contention at this point might be that a.) Of course government organizations would support the existing conclusion, and the fact that b.) There is a split amongst experts with some in my camp and some in yours.

To A I would respond that while yes that is true, that also includes NGOs and professional societies in addition to the standards of their members. Government organizations of all countries in the world are not slaves to some common mouthpiece either. Though possible that is starting to violate a pragmatic and Occam's Razor level of analysis that violates many implicit assumptions that shall be detailed in a bit.

Regarding B you must keep in mind that the consensus in society is that it was not a controlled demolition and therefore with the assent of their professional associations and general opinion, most academics and experts do not even bother to comment on the matter for both the reason that their view can certainly be right and certain logical points I shall detail soon. Thus the outspoken critics are always louder and seem more pronounced giving the illusion of much dissent within academia and amongst "experts" though that is a logical fallacy.

Now logically Stuart Vyse, a psychology professor, sums up my views on the matter: "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"

MIT professor of materials science and engineering similarly commented, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

How can there be so few whistleblowers (please don't give me the 2012 movie line about them all being whacked before coming out) with such an amazing catastrophe as thousands of people would have been needed and considering even small incidents have whistleblowers? How can explosives have been planted and not noticed or no whistle blowers revealing it? How can someone down the chain justify doing this with so many people having to be involved? How can so many other elements be conspired to work so that this all comes together?

If there were bombs then the planes, terrorists, passengers, etc. were not needed and the government could just have said they planted bombs in the towers? All these questions make zero sense in light of the actual evidence. That reasoning alone is why so many people elsewhere deride these theories and why I have come to think they work outside of the actual scientific method. I think it speaks to us psychologically when we can't accept that terrorists can hijack planes and crash them into smaller targets. That is honestly a lot more logical and has a lot less questions to it than the alternative theories.



Originally posted by Cassius666And that was at a German university, you know, the people America turns to when they need to tackle something their guys dont get quite done yet, like going to the moon.


That bit is just hyperbole and does not add anything to the argument. Marshall Plan anyone?


Originally posted by Cassius666Life might not always black and white, but sometimes it is. Sometimes its 1 or 0 .
edit on 15-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


Can I have one example of a black and white scenario in reality, especially in the social sciences?

If it's simple you should be able to come up with one.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
We haven't even dissected the big things. That door was firmly shut with the "Because I said so!" argument.

Follow they money, and it will all come to the fore.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   
The facts that skyscrapers must hold themselves up against gravity and withstand the wind should have allowed EVERYONE to figure out that a single airliner could not TOTALLY DESTROY buildings that big within a matter of weeks.

Skyscraper designers must carefully determine how to distribute the steel.

But after NINE YEARS most of the experts on both sides of the issue are not going into any detail on that issue. Look at pictures of the CN Tower in Toronto. How did they decide on that shape? The tower is not a building so it doesn't have lots of empty space inside and its structure is exposed. But gravity works the same way everywhere on the planet. The support steel in the WTC had to have a similar distribution. But because the WTC did not get narrower toward the top it had even more serious wind problem than the CN Tower.

So talking about an airliner destroying one of those buildings in less than two hours without accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete is absurd. We are being handed a colossal snow job. The engineering schools have made themselves look silly by letting it drag on for more than a year.

psik



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evanescence

Originally posted by Cassius666

I am not aware of any experts outside the official report supporting the official report. I studied at a German university. I talked to students in related fields, they couldnt explain the WTC 7 collapse, or why the towers exploded from jetfuel fire. I tried to talked to professors in related fields, they couldnt explain it either.


Please don't just dismiss my writings here without question, this is a serious question I need you to respond to so I can make sure I am following your thinking.

Wikipedia - WTC Controlled Demolition CTs

That is a link to Wikipedia with many links to sources (governmental and non-governmental) that support the official hypothesis for the collapse of the WTC towers.

Besides several individual professors/experts cited there (including an MIT expert) is also the American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Institution of Structural Engineers, and Popular Mechanics.

Now okay, let's breathe deeply and sort this out. There are professors in the camp that believes the WTC towers were a controlled demolition. However, there are many more that differ from that view, including both professional societies, governmental institutions, and other experts in the field.

Your two points of contention at this point might be that a.) Of course government organizations would support the existing conclusion, and the fact that b.) There is a split amongst experts with some in my camp and some in yours.

To A I would respond that while yes that is true, that also includes NGOs and professional societies in addition to the standards of their members. Government organizations of all countries in the world are not slaves to some common mouthpiece either. Though possible that is starting to violate a pragmatic and Occam's Razor level of analysis that violates many implicit assumptions that shall be detailed in a bit.

Regarding B you must keep in mind that the consensus in society is that it was not a controlled demolition and therefore with the assent of their professional associations and general opinion, most academics and experts do not even bother to comment on the matter for both the reason that their view can certainly be right and certain logical points I shall detail soon. Thus the outspoken critics are always louder and seem more pronounced giving the illusion of much dissent within academia and amongst "experts" though that is a logical fallacy.

Now logically Stuart Vyse, a psychology professor, sums up my views on the matter: "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"

MIT professor of materials science and engineering similarly commented, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

How can there be so few whistleblowers (please don't give me the 2012 movie line about them all being whacked before coming out) with such an amazing catastrophe as thousands of people would have been needed and considering even small incidents have whistleblowers? How can explosives have been planted and not noticed or no whistle blowers revealing it? How can someone down the chain justify doing this with so many people having to be involved? How can so many other elements be conspired to work so that this all comes together?

If there were bombs then the planes, terrorists, passengers, etc. were not needed and the government could just have said they planted bombs in the towers? All these questions make zero sense in light of the actual evidence. That reasoning alone is why so many people elsewhere deride these theories and why I have come to think they work outside of the actual scientific method. I think it speaks to us psychologically when we can't accept that terrorists can hijack planes and crash them into smaller targets. That is honestly a lot more logical and has a lot less questions to it than the alternative theories.



Originally posted by Cassius666And that was at a German university, you know, the people America turns to when they need to tackle something their guys dont get quite done yet, like going to the moon.


That bit is just hyperbole and does not add anything to the argument. Marshall Plan anyone?


Originally posted by Cassius666Life might not always black and white, but sometimes it is. Sometimes its 1 or 0 .
edit on 15-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


Can I have one example of a black and white scenario in reality, especially in the social sciences?

If it's simple you should be able to come up with one.


I wasnt takling so much about science, but about truths. Either a couple of cavesquatters highjacked airliners during the very same day Norad was conducting related wargames and therefore unaware that what they were seeing was not part of a wargame and caused 2 buildings to explode and one to collapse into its own footprint without a plane impacting, or there is more to it and explosives were involved.

Then the 2 airliners impacted both towers at exactly the same tilt angle, quite a feat for 2 amateurish pilots.
The official tale is of such a low probability to have unfolded as described it cant be taken into consideration. The notion that you can conduct a controlled demolition of a skyscraper by starting a couple of fires on the upper floors is ridiculous. The only way it can be achieved is to take out all supporting columns at the same time.

So far all you had was namedropping of supposedly smart engineers, but they did not even talk about tower 7 in the official report. And that nice animation of theirs, that showed one floor pancaking unto another and the steel core standing, did not explain either what caused the steelcore of the building to desintegrate.

Ill trust the people the Americans trusted to send them to the moon on this one.




edit on 16-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   


And that was at a German university, you know, the people America turns to when they need to tackle something their guys dont get quite done yet, like going to the moon.


That’s not quite fair. Von Braun made a choice to go to the west. He didn’t have to stay, he could have gone back to Germany a few years after the war.

But at least you were able to discuss this freely with America. You know the people you turn to when you need your freedom restored.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join