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.

 

The Third Tower

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
It's disturbing to find people who believe the OS of 9/11 is an accurate depiction of events that took place that day. Even a moderate amount of research done by someone with an average level of intelligence would acknowledge there are holes and inconsistencies in the OS. Unbelievable that after 9 years there are still people defending the OS, who need convincing that an orange is not a banana. There is still so much to be revealed about that fateful day, and people who desperately cling on to the OS are only delaying the exposure of truth.

If you cannot see the existence of a Conspiracy in relation to the events of 9/11, then you probably cannot see the existence of a Conspiracy in anything.
edit on 24/11/2010 by Dark Ghost because: ETA




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
It's disturbing to find people who believe the OS of 9/11 is an accurate depiction of events that took place that day. Even a moderate amount of research done by someone with an average level of intelligence would acknowledge there are holes and inconsistencies in the OS. Unbelievable that after 9 years there are still people defending the OS, who need convincing that an orange is not a banana. There is still so much to be revealed about that fateful day, and people who desperately cling on to the OS are only delaying the exposure of truth.



What *I* find disturbing is that despite the many, many times our side agrees there's more to the story concerning 9/11 and there really are people actively covering up things they don't want to get out, the trusters insist on mindlessly repeating on this tired old, "people who desperately cling to the OS" drivel as if it were some religious mantra. I don't know whether these people are so rabidly trusting of everything Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, etc tells them that they don't even bother to read anything anyone else says and they don't understand what they're accusing people of isn't even remotely accurate, or, the idea that someone can believe there's a coverup IN ADDITION to acknowledging 9/11 was a legitimate terrorist attack is such a mind blowing incomprehensible idea to their faith based logic that they simply pretend it's not true.

Either way, it's not research; it's propaganda meant to bolster the failing spirits of the conspiracy theorists, and thus, only hurts their own credibility, not us or anyone else's.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



What *I* find disturbing is that despite the many, many times our side agrees there's more to the story concerning 9/11 and there really are people actively covering up things they don't want to get out, the trusters insist on mindlessly repeating on this tired old, "people who desperately cling to the OS" drivel as if it were some religious mantra.

So you are admittint there is a cover up?
And you admit there's more to the story?

So what bits do you thinkl are being covered up and what bits of the story are missing...



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by truther69
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I guess It wouldnt be a 9/11 conspiracy thread without Goodoldave jumping on it right away with his completely irrational statements. Please correct me if Im wrong but I believe that you said, " the fires burned out of control causing a bulge in the steel structure" Twice!! Would you please type that statement again with your webcam on so we can all actually see you giggling like a schoolgirl behind your keyboard? Im not sure what planet you are from but there is no way, on Earth, burning cubicles, carpeting and computer monitors cause steel beams to " bulge". Oh, but then again building 7 was realllllyyy taaallllllll so of course the fires would cause it implode in 6.5 seconds! Thanks for the laugh, HAHAHAHAHA


So are you saying that NYFD deputy Chief Peter Hayden is lying when he said the fires were burning out of control, and that there was a three story tall bulge in the side of the building? You know this means he's actively covering up secretly planted controlled demolitions as well as the murder of 343 of his brother fire fighters. He's not some shadowy anonymous entity, he's a real live person, and if you do a google search on him you'll find out all you want to know about him. He just retired only recently as a full fire chief.

You trusters keep nibbling around the edges dropping this disgusting innuendo that Hayden is making stuff up but when I try to get a definitive answer from any of you, everyone runs away like three card monty players when the cops show up. Such children's games may be appropriate amongst yourselves but if you're going to demand an actual investigation then you're going to need something more tangible than this tired, "everyone is a secret gov't agent" excuse. You know that and so do I.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



What *I* find disturbing is that despite the many, many times our side agrees there's more to the story concerning 9/11 and there really are people actively covering up things they don't want to get out, the trusters insist on mindlessly repeating on this tired old, "people who desperately cling to the OS" drivel as if it were some religious mantra.

So you are admittint there is a cover up?
And you admit there's more to the story?

So what bits do you thinkl are being covered up and what bits of the story are missing...



I absolutely positively believe the attack could have been prevented, but becuase of too many monumental incompetent decisions throughout the years the attack succeeded NOT becuase of any genius on the part of the attackers, but becuase of the failings of the gov't. An administration that can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels certainly wouldn't be able to handle a terrorist attack with any more efficiency.

How do I know? In my wallet I carry one of those Swisscards, a credit card sized gizmo that contains all sorts of little utilities like tweezers, ball point pen, miniature scissors...and a small knife. Every time I travelled overseas before 9/11 my gear (including my wallet) was X-rayed and either they found it and didn't care, or they didn't find it at all. One year after the 9/11 attack, I went overseas and they found the miniature knife at the very first pass and immediately confiscated the whole thing. The TSA was so razor sharp serious they wouldn't even let me keep the pen, so I had to buy a whole new one when I got back home. The before and after difference in security is obvious.

The reason for the coverup should be self evident. People know they [censored] up royally and they don't want to get hanged for having [censored] up and allowing 3000 people to get killed. It's the whole reason Bush didn't want to testify unless he had his coach with him- he knows he was a little boy sent to Wachington to do a man's job and knows he [censored] up. Sheesh, Bush can't even out a CIA agent without hordes of reporters tracing it back to him and he's supposed to be the brains behind the most complex staged conspiracy in all of recorded human history?

Pull my other leg, why don't you.
edit on 24-11-2010 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


So what's the "more to the story " then?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


So what's the "more to the story " then?


The one thing that bothers me is the part where ground controllers sent the interceptors in a holding pattern out over the Atlantic until they knew where to end them. The way the Pentagon described it is almost as if it was according to some preplanned procedure. I'm not in the air force so I don't know, but back during WWII when Japanese kamikazes showed up on the radar, fighters were sent out with orders to go to their last known position, hunt them down, and kill them. Were the fighters really sent out in a holding pattern as per some established procedure, or did some idiot in the chain of command panic and give out incompetent orders becuase he couldn't cope with handling the attack? If they were released immediately and told to fly Mach 2 to locate and engage, would the towers still be standing today?

THEN, there's the whole "WMD in Iraq" thing. We invaded Iraq over an accusation that turned out not to be true, and the way the gov't handled it was just saying, "Whoopsy Daisy!". Aren't you even remotely concerned that in the very first time in our nation's history we launched an unprovoked attack and it was over drivel? Who's responsible for THAT [censored] up?

Just becuase I agree there are coverups and that there's more to the story than what we know, it doesn't mean we should let our imaginations run wild and hallucinate all these crackpot conspiracies of secret controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, or whatever, that would only work as a plot in a comic book. The real world is screwed up enough as it is without having to make stuff up.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
That's absolutely a beautiful "tell" and perhaps a freudian slip. Now I'm beginning to understand where the Trusters are really coming from.

I surmise that what you meant to say is that Trusters are Truthers. They really do, at a deep subconscious level, believe in what Truthers are after, i.e. an honest investigation because the O.S. is riddled with problematic issues and was obviously designed to promote a transparent agenda.


The trusters are trusters because they explicitly trust everything Dylan Avery, Morgan Reynolds, and every conspiracy flick on Youtube says despite how many times they've been caught red handed at spreading drivel. They are by no means after an honest investigation becuase I've encountered quite a number of conspiracy proponents right here on these boards admitting they will continue to cling to their conspiracy claims regardless of what anyone else can possibly tell them. This isn't a search for the truth. It's blind fanaticism.

Case in point- the OP mentioned issues they had with what happened to WTC 7, and I responded with several eyewitness accounts that described the actual condition of the building. What do the trusters use to try to refute this? Conspiracy videos they found on youtube and interviews made by Dylan Avery. Give me a break.


You d.f. Trusters fear what the Truthers' quest for an honest investigation will most certainly reveal. You are compelled by your fear of the truth, and maybe in some cases by a big fat paycheck, to persist in your crusades of disinformation and promotion of war.


If I'm the one who's "afraid of the truth" as you hypothesize then why are you trusters the ones who refuse to read the 9/11 commission report and only have an inkling of what it actually says, while I know your own conspiracy claims better than you do?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Hey dave by the apparent replies and stars given it seems to be as if your side of this debate is very weak. Also as for eyewitness testimony , I've met and heard of thousands of peoples testimonies about UFO"s and Aliens. Some of those witness are high ranking military and civilian officials. So eyewitness testimony means nothing.

And hey fire chief your gonna go along with this or we'll wipe your family gene off the face of the earth. They're that sinister. Look at north Americas young history. Riddled with notorious covert and decietful operations. This is just another one on the list except it may have been the one that woke us all up.


Wake up Dave they are out to get you and me we need all the help we can get.

Just my 2 cents ( but moneys worthless)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Your_Number_One_Fan

Hey dave by the apparent replies and stars given it seems to be as if your side of this debate is very weak. Also as for eyewitness testimony , I've met and heard of thousands of peoples testimonies about UFO"s and Aliens. Some of those witness are high ranking military and civilian officials. So eyewitness testimony means nothing.


I don't think you can really compare someone seeing some weird thing in the sky and not knowing what it is, to standing next to a building with an out of control fire and specifically seeing a gigantic bulge on the side of it.

Are you telling me you can't see the difference?


And hey fire chief your gonna go along with this or we'll wipe your family gene off the face of the earth. They're that sinister. Look at north Americas young history. Riddled with notorious covert and decietful operations. This is just another one on the list except it may have been the one that woke us all up.


Oh, well in that case, all the witnesses who reported hearing explosions are all '___' addicts who hallucinated explosions just before they hallucinated festively colored worms crawling out of the walls. Oh, and that Architects for 9/11 guy is just conning you to get you to pay for his sex change operation. Hey, you apparently need zero evidence to back up any of your claims so neither do I.

You're just making up excuses for why you shouldn't have to accept the fact that these preposterous conspiracy stories of yours are drivel. You know that and so do I.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Your_Number_One_Fan
 


To some people the thought that "their" goverment would do it is hard to accept. Some people see the goverment as some kind of benevolent father figure, rather than an entity of authority and power that needs to be kept in check.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


You see I am no expert, unlike you believers who think they can actually understand what is written in the NIST report. I rely on the opinion of people who have the necessarry background to actually read AND understand the NIST report. So far the only experts who backed it up are the ones who produced it and people who know nothing of the subject, lawyers, guys on a conspiracy board etc. . Who do you expect me to believe? Aww crap dave on a conspiracy board or somebody who knows his stuff? Many of the believers did read the NIST report and claim to understand it, sorry but unless you are an structural engineer I am not goint to buy that and speaking profanity and putting profanity in your avatar picture is not going to help.

Why would people with related experise lie about it and start a global conspiracy against the NIST report?

But like I said, at this point everybody has made up his mind and unless there arent dramatic revelations, are not going to change it, so we need to step forward and think about what else we need to consider and look into. Somebody suggested in his thread that the attacks and the wars benefit us all and us further pursuing the matter might be against our best interest. That would be a good starting point.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
[off-topic comments/content removed]




Getting back to the matter at hand, I do not deny that WTC7 was struck by debris from the Towers. In fact, I do not think I have ever denied this. What I do not agree with is the statement that there was enough damage caused to WTC7 by the two leveled towers (WTC1, WTC 2) to cause WTC7 to collapse in the way that it did.

If the Towers had toppled over on an angle onto WTC7 instead of virtually exploding apart in midair (as they appear to do on the video), then I would be more inclined to believe that their debris was related to the collapse of WTC7. However, this did not happen. I also do not buy the story of there being a three story bulge in WTC7, since I have not seen any evidence which would verify this.

Someone from the Fire Department saying that a building looks like its going to collapse doesn't cut it for me. And no, all the New York firefighters were not in on this, as it only takes two or three guys to provide some questionable information to muddy the waters.

To properly predict when a large building like WTC7 is going to collapse, I think an inspection of the structure from the interior as well as the exterior is vital. And to my knowledge, no such interior inspection of WTC7 was conducted on 9/11, since firefighters obviously had more pressing concerns with search and rescue efforts at WTC1 and WTC2

I am not an architect or an engineer, but I do know that buildings are extensively inspected during and after construction to make sure they are built to code for obvious stringent safety reasons. To the best of my knowledge, no evidence has surfaced which would verify that WTC7 was poorly built and was vulnerable to such a spontaneous collapse as it experienced on 9/11.

Cheers and no hard feelings I hope.




edit on 11/24/2010 by 12m8keall2c because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join