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 there anything we can agree on in regards to 9/11?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by budaruskie

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by hooper
 


On an historical note ; the Great Fire of London 1666 consumed 13,200 houses, 87 churches and St Pauls Cathedral.


Yes, and not one of them built of steel and concrete, with modern engineering, or more than probably 30 ft tall. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you and yours purposefully derail these threads with trivial points. Since you guys have been so fond of posting CD videos lately and amusing us with the "reasons" why it isn't anything like what we saw on 9/11, why don't you find me a video or any proof at all of a modern high rise building that caught on fire and totally collapsed to dust. One will do.
edit on 12/9/2010 by budaruskie because: forgot to put modern in front of high rise for the morons


I would love to, but your requirements are for s***, in all honesty. It wasn't fire alone that took down the buildings, and I think that's been repeated a million times. Find me a building that's been damaged at least slightly similar to 9/11 with an ensuing fire, then come back to me about precedent.


I never went to you in the first place, pal. If my "requirements" are too much, meaning that you can't do it because ITS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE (the central idea these puppets are trying to discredit) then by all means YOU show me a building "damaged at least slightly similar to 9/11." The point your friends have so foolishly made time and time again is that the ONLY thing 9/11 can be compared to, is a known demolition, and they do it all the time. Granted, the whole time they show us a CD (that many people always say looks like 9/11) they always claim that its different. I'm actually pointing out the hilarity of this mistake and showing you how to improve your argument. The only catch is, that a video like I'm asking for doesn't exist...because its IMPOSSIBLE




posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
I never went to you in the first place, pal. If my "requirements" are too much, meaning that you can't do it because ITS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE (the central idea these puppets are trying to discredit) then by all means YOU show me a building "damaged at least slightly similar to 9/11." The point your friends have so foolishly made time and time again is that the ONLY thing 9/11 can be compared to, is a known demolition, and they do it all the time. Granted, the whole time they show us a CD (that many people always say looks like 9/11) they always claim that its different. I'm actually pointing out the hilarity of this mistake and showing you how to improve your argument. The only catch is, that a video like I'm asking for doesn't exist...because its IMPOSSIBLE


I'm honestly not sure what you even said there. If I gathered it all correctly after reading it thrice, I think you said that first, you weren't talking to me, then that you think that me and someone else believe that CD are comparable to 9/11, then that you think we think it's not comparable, then that something is impossible????

The only way a controlled demolition is similar to 9/11 is because a building collapses. EVERY controlled demolition I have seen has serious differences: noise, speed, rubble spread, dust cloud, etc. They only look similar if you're a gullible idiot, truly.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

I'm honestly not sure what you even said there. If I gathered it all correctly after reading it thrice, I think you said that first, you weren't talking to me, then that you think that me and someone else believe that CD are comparable to 9/11, then that you think we think it's not comparable, then that something is impossible????


Really, that's not surprising. Many things confuse and confound the weak minded.


The only way a controlled demolition is similar to 9/11 is because a building collapses. EVERY controlled demolition I have seen has serious differences: noise, speed, rubble spread, dust cloud, etc. They only look similar if you're a gullible idiot, truly.


Noise- They both contain explosions that sound like "firecrackers" oh yeah and the deep booms from below.
Speed- Science has confirmed that the buildings dropped at virtually free-fall speed, which actually is faster than usual yet only possible with explosives.
Rubble spread-
I don't even know where to begin with this one, there is nothing to debate.
Dust cloud- they both contain large plumes of dust only 9/11 contained a lot of smoke because of things continuing to explode.

Yes, one of us is truly a gullible idiot and hopelessly inadequate at debate or critical thought.
edit on 12/9/2010 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
Noise- They both contain explosions that sound like "firecrackers" oh yeah and the deep booms from below.

Really? Where? I'd like to hear this.


Speed- Science has confirmed that the buildings dropped at virtually free-fall speed, which actually is faster than usual yet only possible with explosives.

Your key-word is always virtual. They fell slower than free fall. What, did you think a collapse would have the materials kindly waiting for the rest of the materials to slowly fall away, or shouldn't they have been impacting each-other and pushing each-other out of the way on the way down?


Rubble spread-
I don't even know where to begin with this one, there is nothing to debate.

The rubble was spread over quite a large area on 9/11, and a lot of it was underground because there was an extensive underground complex and gaslines which ruptured after collapse, leading to serious fires and heat.


Dust cloud- they both contain large plumes of dust only 9/11 contained a lot of smoke because of things continuing to explode.

They both contain large plumes of dust, but 9/11 had more. Not because things "continued to explode." Why on earth would you continue blowing it up as it's collapsing? It's because the buildings still had junk, people, and other usually cleared out material during a demo.


Yes, one of us is truly a gullible idiot and hopelessly inadequate at debate or critical thought.
edit on 12/9/2010 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)


Stop bad-mouthing and learn to think.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Noise- They both contain explosions that sound like "firecrackers" oh yeah and the deep booms from below.

Really? Where? I'd like to hear this.



There is no refuting that video, if you try you will fail and look like an idiot.


Your key-word is always virtual. They fell slower than free fall.

I have no "key" words. If you'd like it described another way how 'bout this "very near" or "almost" or "impossibly close without the aid of explosions moving resistance out of the way". Is that better? It has been PROVEN time and time again on this site and I will allow you the pleasure of looking it up yourself. Even your beloved NIST report says as much.


The rubble was spread over quite a large area on 9/11, and a lot of it was underground because there was an extensive underground complex and gaslines which ruptured after collapse, leading to serious fires and heat.


I'm actually quite satisfied with this and don't wish to debate you on this. I would only add that its clear that the building was simultaneously blowing up as it was falling down, which could explain rubble being "spread out..."


They both contain large plumes of dust, but 9/11 had more. Not because things "continued to explode." Why on earth would you continue blowing it up as it's collapsing? It's because the buildings still had junk, people, and other usually cleared out material during a demo.

Why on earth? I believe that is obvious and really doesn't need explaining.
'splain this

or this

'nuff said



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


*sigh* That first video starts out with something that has been debunked. I'm not talking crazy "I can't believe anything different than government happened" debunking. I mean, the video is mono and the explosion sound is in stereo. That's pretty important.

I'm not trying to refute the whole video. I agree wholeheartedly that there were a lot of explosions that day. I just don't see any evidence that explosions were demolitions inside the buildings as they collapsed.

The only thing that I can't stand about videos like those is that ANY reports of anything explosive are used as evidence of CD, which simply isn't truth. At least half the reports of explosions were from the airplane impacts and a great majority were explosions from debris. A lot of the rest could have been confusion and media-induced hysteria, though that's entirely speculation on my part.

What I wish is that truthers would stop FIGHTING everyone who doesn't agree with them and find evidence for their claims that isn't debatable. This thing where you say things like "Even your beloved NIST report says as much." It makes my blood boil, because I don't have a *** **** attachment to a single organization's work. I don't ******* believe the official story just because it's what is commonly accepted.

Also, you can't say that it was spread out and that it fell in its footprint at the same time. Those two things are entirely contradictory. (assuming of course that like 99% of truthers, you think the buildings fell in their footprints).

As for projectiles, there's something known as kinetic energy. If you compress a space, it will shoot out from the sides. If the tower was collapsing like a CD, then the whole building would have come down at once in a smooth, inward universal destruction. Instead, it destroyed itself on the way down.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I've never seen the supposed debunking of the 1st video, and regardless of mono or stereo the guys on the street certainly reacted to the boom. I'm tired of the "trusters" ignoring all of the credible claims, some of which are in that video, and focusing solely on the ones that could be ambiguous. It's hard not to notice that you didn't even address the last two videos, but claimed there is no clear evidence for the truth movement's claims. I agree with your assessment of cd's falling into their own footprint, just look at WTC7 for proof. WTC 1&2 were not typical but are CLEARLY exploding! It looks like an explosion, people experienced explosions, there is proof of explosives in the dust yet you say no explosions, why?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by Varemia
 


I've never seen the supposed debunking of the 1st video, and regardless of mono or stereo the guys on the street certainly reacted to the boom. I'm tired of the "trusters" ignoring all of the credible claims, some of which are in that video, and focusing solely on the ones that could be ambiguous. It's hard not to notice that you didn't even address the last two videos, but claimed there is no clear evidence for the truth movement's claims. I agree with your assessment of cd's falling into their own footprint, just look at WTC7 for proof. WTC 1&2 were not typical but are CLEARLY exploding! It looks like an explosion, people experienced explosions, there is proof of explosives in the dust yet you say no explosions, why?


No, there's a fireman walking up to him right that moment yelling at him. Somebody thought it was a clever idea to put an explosion because his reaction was so surprised.

It apparently doesn't look like an explosion to me, and there's too much evidence about the damage to WTC 7 for me to consider it a demolition.

The dust proof is highly debated, so I don't rely on it as proof. The only supporting papers for Jones are people who agreed with his findings, not people who replicated his research. If I see ONE person who is not biased over conspiracies replicate Jones' results, then I will believe it.
edit on 15-12-2010 by Varemia because: typo



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


Viewed most posts on this thread but failed to find the most obvious and glaring answer:

I would hope that we all can agree on at least this: Hardened steel does not melt at temperatures generated by jet fuel, essentially kerosine. Of course, this is not my opinion, just a rule of physics that steel melts at a certain temperature and burning jet fuel (flash burn NOT sustained) does NOT provide sufficient energy to melt steel.

Now, mind you, if jet fuel did in fact mutate and somehow melt steel (an alternative universe i guess) then why would the last building "hit" collapse first...in other words...the fire burning the shortest amount of time killed the WTC tower...and the last one burning the longest also felled the other tower...and of course, there is BOTH TOWERS FELL EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, COLLAPSING INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT...

Even Vegas would calculate those odds of a zillion to one...

So...since the official explanation does not take into account real physical laws, the OS has to be a lie, or the sheeple will believe anything, anything regardless of how absurd.

And of course, acorrding to NASA, there are no stars in space because no stars are ever shown on ISS or space feed video...Why is that?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo-V™
 

I fully agree. IMO I think we should all at least be in agreement that at the very least, it was allowed to happen. The exact same thing happened in 1940, a surprised attack on the West, but 60 years on we now know it wasn't a surprise to some, and they got public support for the war. Society in the fourties was more naive and easy to patronise back then, society in 2001 had come a long long way and instead of accepting what we were told happened, finally started to question it.


It depends on what your definition of, "allowed to happen" is. According to the 9/11 Commission report...and this part is not for debate...the gov't and law enforcement had a fetish over the war on drugs. Planes coming in from overseas weren't bombers, but they WERE drug smugglers. People with secret hollowed out compartments in the heels of their shoes weren't hiding explosives or "Get Smart" phones. but they WERE hiding heroin or coc aine. I can absolutely positively acknowledge how the FBI, the TSA, whoever, in their single minder anti-drug fervor would have looked through these hijackers with a fine tooth comb, not seen any drugs, and allowed them to pass becuase they didn't stop to think the hijackers might have had something else up their sleeve. The attack was allowed to happen simply because we were expecting something else to have happened and, once the attack started, people in authority were running around in circles and hyperventilating becuase they didn't know how to deal with it.

The attack on Pearl Harbor is actually a case in point- the commanders never dreamed Japan would attack from the air. They had the single minded thought that an attack would come from sabotage, so they lumped all their aircraft in the center of the field to guard them more effectively. What it wound up doing is that it made them an easier target from the air. If you're not looking for it you're not going to find it.


We're now seeing the fraud in the banking industry being brought to light, but the same wild theories haven't been attached to to it, why, because it involves real people who have acted against the interests of the people, as did other real people before on and after 9/11, but given the complexity of the system today, in turn making the 9/11 conspiracy quite complex, and it's easier for people to debate the absurd than focus on real facts, and I believe, if the roads led anywhere else that people wouldn't be bickering like they do.


The reason why banking conspiracies aren't suffering from dreamers with overactive imaginations is simply becuase they aren't sinister sounding enough. The other day the history channel ran some documentary showing how there was some plot to murder Meriweather Lewis (of Lewis and Clark fame). Was it a conspiracy? Perhaps. Was it sinister sounding enough to care what happened? Not really. On the other hand, the trusters in the 9/11 conspiracy ranks are all but involved in a contest to see who can come up with the most convoluted, "Rube Goldberg" scheme possible of secretly planted bombs covered up by faked hijackings along with faked crash sites in Shanksville. One guy here even claimed the gov't murdered the passengers of 9/11, chopped up their bodies, planted the body pieces into a cruise missile, and launched it at the Pentagon to plant the passenger DNA. This has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to find the truth behind the events of 9/11. This is simply a regurgitation of that guy's own sick in the head angst.


...well if he has evidence to support financial fraud and information showing the Governments conspiring to create war, the more plausible 9/11 conspiracy theory may just be proved right in the near future rather than 60 years from now.


In 60 years the obstacles to prove conspiracy will be the same as they are now- all the evidence proving it was NOT a conspiracy needs to be addressed. Simply saying everything that disproves the conspiracy is all just disinformation from secret gov't agents is simply an exercise in excuse making. This will be true in 60 years just as it is true today.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
Is there anything we can agree on in regards to 9/11?


Absolutely! It was a horrible, horrible act which took countless innocent lives. I hope each and everyone of them finds their peace. Be you Atheist or a believer, I think we all can agree on that.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by EdWard54
 


That's because steel didn't melt in the towers. We do agree that steel can't melt due to office fires. It can, however, "weaken."

As for NASA's space feed. I would bet that has to do with the light settings on the camera lens.

And the tower hit second collapsed first because it was hit lower and at a different angle than the first hit tower. It's not the hardest thing to comprehend that the factors were different so the tower reacted differently, though both inevitably collapsed.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well since, I am most likely what you would call a "regular truster" let me respond. Quite a few of us "trusters" have been pointing out for YEARS the failures in our government that made it so easy for us to get attacked. Its not a "new" thing at all.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I hope we can agree that WTC 1 and 2 and WTC 7 were modern buildings built to withstand fires.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by budaruskie
 




but I do not believe they would murder 3,000 fellow Americans in order to do that (or to invade Iraq, for that matter). I believe that, in all honesty, members of the house and the senate, as well as the Bush administration, honestly felt that the laws they passed would help in protecting Americans... This can be attributed to the widespread fear and paranoia that spread across the nation following these ruthless attacks, and it only makes logical sense that members within our government would feel that same fear.




This is exactly why most Americans don't believe truthers! It's incomprehensible that our government could murder 3,000 of its own civilians. Yet, the Gulf of Tokin was a covert black flag operation to get us into Vietnam and send 50,000 of our young citizens to their early deaths. The Iraq war alone was based on weapons of mass destruction lies which have caused 4,000 of our citizens an early death.

We can also add the following...


-Project MKULTRA (Illegal CIA Human research)

-Radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers during the development of the atomic bomb.

-Confessed by Pres. Clinton, the Tuskegee Syphilis study which killed 200 black men who were used as guinea pigs.

-The Pellagra Incident, After a million die, the director of Public Health Services admits it knew 20 years earlier that Pellagra was caused by niacin deficiency.

-400 prisoners in Chicago are infected with Malaria in order to study the new effects of drugs. The Nazis used this American study to justify their studies during the Nuremberg trials.

-Eighty-eight members of congress sign a letter demanding an investigation into bio weapons use & Gulf War Syndrome.

....And there's more!! ...Here's a link if you want to learn more about killings our Government has done in the past

www.raven1.net...


- If these same naysayers would just look back at other U.S. covert operations that have lead to thousands of American citizens being killed or murdered, maybe they could start removing the wall of denial they built for themselves.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
I hope we can agree that WTC 1 and 2 and WTC 7 were modern buildings built to withstand fires.


Yes, but we can't agree on the insinuation that they were said to have collapsed solely due to fire. They collapsed because of fire AND damage. Remember that, ok?



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by EdWard54
 


I completely agree with your claim.
Sam is a bad name, its ambiguous and I don't like not knowing who I'm talking to, ya know? (needed 2nd line)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by EdWard54
 


That's because steel didn't melt in the towers. We do agree that steel can't melt due to office fires. It can, however, "weaken."

As for NASA's space feed. I would bet that has to do with the light settings on the camera lens.

And the tower hit second collapsed first because it was hit lower and at a different angle than the first hit tower. It's not the hardest thing to comprehend that the factors were different so the tower reacted differently, though both inevitably collapsed.


Yes..but why if the two buildings were hit in two different places one apparently worse than the other, did both towers fall the exact same way? There is simply no way you can argue that available video evidence alone is not sufficient to clearly see explosions occuring all over the place. Just look back at the videos in my previous post and address anything. In a jury amongst the people of America I can guarantee you that more see those explosions than don't, period.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   


“If a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down,”


Herbert Levine, inventor of wet-spray asbestos fireproofing, in regards to the Towers.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


I wouldn't say they fell exactly the same way. One had its top section fall sideways and leave core columns standing for a moment. The other one fell straight down, not counting the debris that shot sideways due to path of least resistance.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join