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.

 

9/11 Truth Ads Appearing On TV in New York City

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by mayabong
 


Thats because they did not reach the impact zones (93-98 in North Tower, 78-83 in South Tower)

This is where the aircraft struck the building and spilled jet fuel started the fires

You are not going to play "Only 2 pockets of fire " crap are you.....?

FDNY was only beginning to reach the lowest area of impact zone on 78th floor of South Tower Chief Orio
Palmer had gone ahead and radioed what he found. 78 floor was sky lobby where people changed elevators
not a lot to burn as floor was mostly tile/marble and machinery. Only few offices with combustibles

Chief Palmer (who knew the towers well) had found freight elevator which ran to 41st floor cutting distance to climb in half. Palmer was a marathon runner and being a chief officer was not carrying hose or heavy tools to impede him.

Fire Marshal Ron Bucca also made it up the stairs to the 78th floor.

If listen close to radio will hear that most of crew was still in stairway when building collapsed


Fair enough, i'm not gonna argue all this, cause I think 9 years later we both have our opinions solidified. I think it was an israeli operation, you think it was guys in a cave. Lets just leave it at that lol. Thanks for replying.




posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by Alfie1
 





I am not a US citizen citizen and I would not claim that the US has never put a foot wrong or backed the wrong despot but to paint everything as black as you do is simply absurd and perverse.


Then you are arguing from a position of complete ignorance.

What is the greater absurdity; that the US has 700 military bases in over 130 nations, or that I object to my government occupying foreign nations and slaughtering people in my name?

Which is the greater perversity; that my government openly admits to torture, imprisonment without trial, assassination of anyone the President deems a threat, and the pretense of supporting democracy while supporting murderous undemocratic regimes, or that I want accountability, justice, and peace?

As to the rest - a point by point refutation of the stale, 4th grade historical fallacies you cite, would take up too much of my time.


It is now apparent that you are a US citizen so I think that it is very sad that you feel as you do.

You describe the positive historical examples I pointed out to you as "stale", and you obviously do not wish to discuss them, but, with the exception of WW 1, they all happened in my lifetime and countries are assessed over long periods of time.

I do not approve of torture or imprisonment without trial but what came first, the chicken or the egg. It was the US that was attacked on 9/11.

I have no time for spurious suggestions that the US invaded Iraq and/or Afghanistan for oil. The cost of military operations would have bought enough oil on the world market to sink the North American continent.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Maybe should do some real research rather than parroting idiotic conspiracy sites.....

Here is transcripts of the radio communication from FDNY crews

Battalion 7 is Chief Palmer

7 Alpha or 7 Aide is his driver/aide Steve Belson, who was Jewish by the way. So he didn;t get the message
that Jews were supposed to stay home?

1-5 or 15 is Ladder 15 members

en.wikisource.org...

Shows where crews where in the building. Palmer had only reached the 78th floor, lowest level of impact zone
Reported numerous aasualties in the elevator lobby.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 





It is now apparent that you are a US citizen so I think that it is very sad that you feel as you do.


Well, thank you for your sympathy. I assume you agree then.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Laugh away as you see fit, as I don't care whether you laugh at me or not. All I care about is if you can show why even an iota of anything I'm posting here is false. Can you?


Can you show another building that collapsed in a similar fashion to WTC7 that was not hit by a boeing 757?

And yes, we know that according to NIST the structural collapse of WTC7 was mainly due to fires, and not structural damage.


The fires in WTC 7 were ignited as a result of the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was approximately 110 m (350 ft) to the south. The debris also caused structural damage to the southwest exterior of the WTC, primarily between floors 7 to 17.

wtc.nist.gov...



Factors contributing to the building failure were: thermal expansion occurring at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in design practice for establishing structural fire resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors, which are common in office buildings in widespread use; connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads; and a structural system that was not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

wtc.nist.gov...

A hypothetical analysis in one breath....



What troubles me is that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are not the ones that have the burden of proof in this situation. It's easy to dismiss someone's theory or idea of what may have occurred considering they're not the ones with access to relevant data or any significant physical evidence that is likely available to federal agencies. The federal government who solicited these reports and the 9/11 commission so far has been the only one with the access to thoroughly investigate the collapse and the 9/11 incident all around, including internal activity before and after 9/11.

What 9/11 'conspiracy theorists' if you will, are simply in agreement with, is that these reports are not showing the whole story, nor is the evidence for their conclusion substantial. This would of course include their simulations and conclusions regarding hypothetical blast scenarios. And so this is where disagreement begins.

And so I return to my original question.

Is there another example of a building, a steel-framed building, that has had a similar structural failure (nearly free-fall, if not free-fall as it was recently admitted), due mainly to fires....and did not suffer the direct impact of a boeing 757?


NIST NCSTAR 1A at 45 states: [November 2008]
The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2 (9 .81 m/s2 ), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g. Acceleration equivalent to the acceleration of gravity defines free fall.
NCSTAR 1-9 at 607 observes: [November 2008]
a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s


You might also want to note that while NIST is the prime contractor, they awarded analytical work to smaller contractors who were given the order not to make any conclusions about the collapse of WTC 7 based on the evidence that they found. This can be referenced in the SOW section of their awarded contracts.
edit on 6-12-2010 by laiguana because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
"It's easy to dismiss someone's theory or idea of what may have occurred considering they're not the ones with access to relevant data or any significant physical evidence that is likely available to federal agencies."

And there lies the problem. The physical evidence at Ground Zero was quickly disposed of by those authorized to do the clean up. If a real investigation had been done, the evidence should not have NOT tampered with and should have remained on the site until each and every bit of it was examined, logged and documented. This would have taken weeks, if not months.

Instead, the dump trucks were rolled in immediately and the area was swept clean because Osama Been Hidin' had been found guilty in a lightning quick fashion and with absolutely no evidence. Again, why the rush to hustle the evidence out of there, which completely compromised the non-investigation?

And by the way, spoliation of evidence is a felony under New York State law. It is usually something which is done by the perpetrator or an accomplice for the obvious reason of avoiding prosecution.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"It's easy to dismiss someone's theory or idea of what may have occurred considering they're not the ones with access to relevant data or any significant physical evidence that is likely available to federal agencies."

And there lies the problem. The physical evidence at Ground Zero was quickly disposed of by those authorized to do the clean up. If a real investigation had been done, the evidence should not have NOT tampered with and should have remained on the site until each and every bit of it was examined, logged and documented. This would have taken weeks, if not months.

Instead, the dump trucks were rolled in immediately and the area was swept clean because Osama Been Hidin' had been found guilty in a lightning quick fashion and with absolutely no evidence. Again, why the rush to hustle the evidence out of there, which completely compromised the non-investigation?

And by the way, spoliation of evidence is a felony under New York State law. It is usually something which is done by the perpetrator or an accomplice for the obvious reason of avoiding prosecution.


Oh for Pete's sake ! The debris took until May 2002 to be cleared. For how many years was New York expected to live with every bit being " examined, logged and documented " ? It would still be going on now, and for what purpose exactly ?



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"It's easy to dismiss someone's theory or idea of what may have occurred considering they're not the ones with access to relevant data or any significant physical evidence that is likely available to federal agencies."

And there lies the problem. The physical evidence at Ground Zero was quickly disposed of by those authorized to do the clean up. If a real investigation had been done, the evidence should not have NOT tampered with and should have remained on the site until each and every bit of it was examined, logged and documented. This would have taken weeks, if not months.

Instead, the dump trucks were rolled in immediately and the area was swept clean because Osama Been Hidin' had been found guilty in a lightning quick fashion and with absolutely no evidence. Again, why the rush to hustle the evidence out of there, which completely compromised the non-investigation?

And by the way, spoliation of evidence is a felony under New York State law. It is usually something which is done by the perpetrator or an accomplice for the obvious reason of avoiding prosecution.


Oh for Pete's sake ! The debris took until May 2002 to be cleared. For how many years was New York expected to live with every bit being " examined, logged and documented " ? It would still be going on now, and for what purpose exactly ?


At the very least, if you believe the official story. to see exactly what went wrong and how to avoid these kinda "collapses" again.

Why do they reassemble whole planes after a crash?



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 



Why do they reassemble whole planes after a crash?


To determine the cause, when the cause and circumstances that led up to the cause are unknown.

Next?



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mayabong
 



Why do they reassemble whole planes after a crash?


To determine the cause, when the cause and circumstances that led up to the cause are unknown.

Next?



Exactly.
And the cause the collapse of the building were what? Oh.....you just said it.....UNKNOWN.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Smack
 



I have shocking news for you - Jesus (if he ever existed) wasn't born on Dec.25 . Now go fact check that and while you're at it, read some history at least.


Well, you obviously are confused by the concept of "facts". My fact was simple and can be tested: 'in the US Christmas is generally celebrated on December 25'. The you start in on some crap about Jesus and his birthday. Don't care. You need to study up on the simple concept of stating facts and differentiating that from opinion.


I recommend Carrol Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope", it's a long read, but well worth it. I can supply you with a scholarly book list if you wish.


Yeah, I need advice from the guy who can't distinguish fact and opinion.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





in the US Christmas is generally celebrated on December 25


yeah, I'm just curious what you meant by 'generally'. Is the statement true or false? Do you mean it is not always a fact? Is it a less < than or greater > than statement? using modifiers in 'factual' statements is tricky. But, hey, you sounded certain up to that point.
What is Christmas, by the way? I thought it was Jesus' Birthday. Hm...Maybe you meant Solstice, Hanukkah or Quanza, because those are celebrated around this time of year too - generally.

Are you satisfied that the facts you've learned about 911 are the truth?



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by thedman
 


I just came across this video of the FF radios. Not much fire going on according to them.


If you listen carefully, the fires were not at the impact sites themselves, but on the lowest damaged floors. They were trapped in the stairway trying to make it through to the actual impact floors, and couldn't.

As for this thread, it's just the same old, same old. One truther says "it's a lie!" and ten more chime in with bouts of anti-government viva-la-revolution or pessimistic ties to their government. A number of others contest the truthers and is basically bashed. Blah blah, same stuff.

WTC 7, if properly researched, was not a controlled demolition. Sure, it's a "possibility," but it's such a far-reaching possibility that in order for it to be pulled off, one needs to have a ridiculously powerful imagination and an absolute hatred for those in charge. I mean, debris IMPACTED building 7. Fires occurred in the damaged building. Fires were not fought because of lack of water supply. I recall reading about a firefighter trying to fight the fires, but the hose didn't have enough water pressure to shoot past the sidewalk. It's not a stretch to imagine the building collapsing, and if you watch any full video of the collapse, you see that it collapsed heavily internally before collapsing externally.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Here's an interesting article put out a few months ago by a fox news reporter. While bashing ventura for his views on WTC 7, he admits that controlled demolition was an option and everyone knew it. There was no conspiracy according to him.

Of course fox took it down but lots of sites have the article now a days.

www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com...



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


They will always find an excuse to stay asleep.
No matter what.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Smack
 


Once again, seems worthy of pointing out.....what is a feasible timeline for a "controlled demolition set-up and installation" inside WTC 7? (AKA, the "inside-job theory").....

A logical, reasonable theory, please.

Appears that there are, really, only two possible scenarios (and variations, or sub-sets, within those):

  • A --- The entire events of that were "planned" well, well in advance. Therefore there was plenty of time to "rig" not only WTC 7, but #1 and #2 as well. Does this seem like a "logical" or "reasonable claim, though?

    -----sub-set of "A" requires an incredible leap of faith (and suspension of logic, to me). It must be believed that weeks, nay MONTHS of work was accomplished, "setting it up", with none of the tenants and everyday workers ever seeing anything out of the ordinary.

    How was this accomplished?

    As yet, there are a host of inane "speculations", but no solid "theories".

    -----sub-sub-set of "A" follows on: Even IF (huge "if") you wish to accept the highly unlikely scenario of a known hijacking and suicide attacks, using the two jets in NYC, into WTC 1 & 2, you are still left with the completely random nature of the collapsing debris, and its hitting WTC 7, as your so-called "cover story" to explain the collapse.

    This is simply untenable, and completely unbelievable.

    Now, the other "choice" (keeping with the "inside-job theory"):

  • B --- The attacks were "known" beforehand (and intentionally not acted upon), but the exact details weren't known until they actually occurred. So, post impact of American 11 and United 175, special (invisible?) teams of crack experts were able to run in, unseen, to a building (WTC 7) that was involved on several floors, on fire , with severe damage, and structural integrity compromised. This, of course, AFTER the collapse of WTC Towers.

    Or, sub-set of "B", the "rigging for demo" of WTC 7 was accomplished really, really quickly, that morning before the collapses of the Towers. Either way, pre- or post-collapse, (of the Towers) until the collapse (~17:20 EST) of WTC 7 building, both "A" and "B" seem equally implausible...don't they?


    Finally, we have the circumstances regarding the days and weeks and months that followed, in the area. The list of buildings (WTC 3, the Marriott Hotel, WTC 4, 5 and 6 too) that were torn down, cleared out, is easily found (with graphics) online.** They encompass a certain radius, as they were all victims, in one way or another, of the falling debris from the Towers.

    **Here is a link, one of many:

    www.capelinks.com...

    So, as has been continually pointed out, the consensus, even that afternoon, was that WTC 7's viability, and structural integrity, had been compromised anyway. It WOULD have been slated for demolition, just as the others were.

    So, what is the "conspiracy"??



  • posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 07:01 AM
    link   
    reply to post by weedwhacker
     


    My view is that the 'how' of 911 is not the most important question. I don't know how the buildings fell like they did; even NIST admits they don't have all the answers. The entire event is a singular anomaly in history; I don't claim to know for certain what happened, or how it happened.

    But, do we really need more evidence that criminals run our government? Didn't they lie us into a war that has killed and maimed 10x as many as 911?

    Whether or not you think 911 was an inside job, don't they behave just like tyrants capable of such an act?

    No nation in the history of the world has been able to avoid periods of despotism, where ruthless
    men dominate the people for their own selfish aims. America is no exception. The pendulum swings inexorably to and fro.
    edit on 7-12-2010 by Smack because: changed word :for clarity of meaning



    posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 07:04 AM
    link   
    reply to post by TheWatcher11
     


    These claims of insider trading were investigated by the FBI and the SEC and found to be not true. Do a simple web search of quality sites not conspiracy sites.




    Idiots will always side with Government


    What does that make those who blindly accept the conspiracy websites?



    posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:43 AM
    link   
    Oh, those claims were investigated and found not to be true? Thank God you're here. Otherwise I might pursue this a little further. I've got to get over my desire for reasonable explanations and rely more on my govt. to tell me what's going on. After all, they are looking out for my best interests right?



    posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:20 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by laiguana
    Can you show another building that collapsed in a similar fashion to WTC7 that was not hit by a boeing 757?


    This isn't refuting the NIST scenario. All you're doing is saying it never happened before, which is true, but it's likewise true that this isn't sufficient reason to say it couldn't happen *at all*. I shouldn't need to point out that lots of things happen that never happened before in the past, particulary when you're being conspicuously selective on when you're using it. The US never launched an unprovoked attack against another country like we did against Iraq, either. Does this logic mean we never invaded Iraq?





    What troubles me is that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are not the ones that have the burden of proof in this situation. It's easy to dismiss someone's theory or idea of what may have occurred considering they're not the ones with access to relevant data or any significant physical evidence that is likely available to federal agencies. The federal government who solicited these reports and the 9/11 commission so far has been the only one with the access to thoroughly investigate the collapse and the 9/11 incident all around, including internal activity before and after 9/11.


    Well, there's the problem. Not only did so many freakish things come together all at once...major terrorist plots, the collapse of WTC 1 onto WTC 7, the destruction of the water supplies to the fire suppression systems, etc., there is scant documentation on how WTC 7 collapsed because noone recorded what was going in inside. You will NEVER get irrefutable proof for why WTC 7 collapsed one way or the other, and there were even disagreements amongst the NIST engineers themselves on how the fires caused the collapse.

    It is true the gov't has the burden of proof...but the very second the conspiracy theorists decide to create their own scenarios of massive conspiracies and tales of sinister sabotage, it becomes *their* responsibility to back the claims up. The fact of the matter is, there is plenty of evidence supporting the NIST account and zero evidence supporting the conspriacy theorists' account, so continuing to subscribe to these improbable scenarios is nothing but conspiracy mongoring for conspiracy mongoring sake.



    What 9/11 'conspiracy theorists' if you will, are simply in agreement with, is that these reports are not showing the whole story, nor is the evidence for their conclusion substantial. This would of course include their simulations and conclusions regarding hypothetical blast scenarios. And so this is where disagreement begins.


    I absolutely agree, but the problem is that there are far more non-conspiracy reasons for this than there are conspiracy reasons, from the dependence on sensitive intelligence that cannot be released, to reluctance of people to admit they screwed up, to our simply not knowing enough information to even fill in the black holes. The immediate instinct that some convoluted inside job conspiracy must be at work is coming entirely from the conspiracy theorists' own abject paranoia, rather than any real review of the facts.

    As I mentioned previously, firefighters mentioned they saw large scale bulging in the side of the structure from the fires. Is it from a real review of the facts or abject paranoia that the conspriacy theorists are accusing these firefighters of being secret gov't agents spreading disinformation? You tell me.


    You might also want to note that while NIST is the prime contractor, they awarded analytical work to smaller contractors who were given the order not to make any conclusions about the collapse of WTC 7 based on the evidence that they found. This can be referenced in the SOW section of their awarded contracts.


    Why is this worthy of note? It wasn't the subcontractors' job to discern what caused WTC 7 to collapse. It was their job to analyze the available materials and explain what happened to it so that NIST use it to discern what caused WTC 7 to collapse. Laboratories that analyze DNA are trying to determine whose DNA they're looking at, not whether the person the DNA came from was guilty of committing a crime.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    14
    << 1  2    4 >>

    log in

    join