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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
 

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.


You are allowing your blind loyalty to Dylan Avery and Alex Jones to usurp your common sense. During the cleanup of ground zero the prime directive wasn't to "keep the evidence intact for weeks, if not months". The immediate pressing need was to locate and rescue survivors trapped in the wreckage as quickly as possible. There weren't many, but people did survive, so you'll need to forgive the ground crews for caring more for rescuing trapped people vs satisfying the absurd chain of custody requirements of you conspiracy theorists...which we both know you wouldn't accept anyway because we both know it doesn't support what you want to believe.

You conveniently neglect the fact that every piece of wreckage from WTC steel to burned cars were brought out to a site in Staten Island for sorting, of which sections are kept in a hanger at JFK even now. Plus, a plethora of photographs exist whish shows the precise condition of the steel being removed, many of which have been shown here. The fact is, no evidence exists anywhere of any imagined sabotage from explosives so this "they removed it quickly" bit is simply disingenuous conspiracy mongoring on your part.




posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
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?


So do you have any proof that their was insider trading or is this more hand waving?

Show us some proof that doesn't come from some conspiracy website.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by dillweed
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?


So do you have any proof that their was insider trading or is this more hand waving?

Show us some proof that doesn't come from some conspiracy website.


Well here is a link to a "conspiracy website" but they also link to mainstream sources.

P.S. you're on a "conspiracy website" right now. lol

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


Technically, this site is slightly different, because rather than being a fellow or group of fellows with a belief they are trying to prove, this site is a collective of varied ideas that fight with each other until a truth or acceptable possibility is determined. It's what makes ATS so cool sometimes is when people work to really iron out the falsities of the claims other people make.

But therein lies the problem with the 9/11 part of this forum. There are hordes of people who do blindly support just about any conspiracy website that knows how to say things that appeal to the inner imagination we all have. They start things off calmly, like saying "look at this innocent situation." Then, they soften you up by giving you out of context comments or figures. Then, they take a leap and say "haha, so the government must be guilty, because CIA FBI NIST evil government conspiracy." It's this leap that I can't stand to see. The part where truthers cease to be truthers and become conspiracy theorists with no reason.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



of which sections are kept in a hanger at JFK even now. Plus, a plethora of photographs exist whish shows the precise condition of the steel being removed, many of which have been shown here. The fact is, no evidence exists anywhere of any imagined sabotage from explosives so this "they removed it quickly" bit is simply disingenuous conspiracy mongoring on your part.


Our FD is escorting a section of steel from the WTC as it is transported from JFK to NJ for use in a memorial

If want can check it for Thermite, Nano-thermite, angled cuts, cutter charges, blast damage from mini nukes....



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


Geez thought motto of ATS is "DENY IGNORANCE"

Not lets make up S&*( to support our conspiracy fantasies and see how many can sucker......



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Earlier this year, another piece of WTC steel was presented to a fire house (Station 5) here in Arlington, VA.

(I was walking by the other day, and noticed it, so looked it up online):

www.arlingtonva.us...

www.wtop.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


A few months ago some very large pieces of the ground floor sections were delivered to a former steel mill near my home for incorporation into a museum display.

Guess they came back from China.

Also, aren't there mountains of debris at a landfill on Staten Island?

Amazing.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

There is no contradiction in any of the evidence.


The NIST report claims that their investigation found that structural damage did not contribute to the collapse, but the eyewitness accounts do. You cited both.

And as I have cited many times, if there was significant damage to *one* side of the building, the building would fall in that direction.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


If I remember right, it was that the structural damage isn't what directly led to the collapse, not that it had no contribution whatsoever. Remember they did models where they collapsed it from the same location with and without damage, and it was only the one with damage that behaved similar to what happened?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by mayabong
 


Technically, this site is slightly different, because rather than being a fellow or group of fellows with a belief they are trying to prove, this site is a collective of varied ideas that fight with each other until a truth or acceptable possibility is determined. It's what makes ATS so cool sometimes is when people work to really iron out the falsities of the claims other people make.


ATS is way, WAY different from being a conspiracy web site. It's more of a conspiracy clearing house where anyone can come and have their say both pro and con as long as they're civil. Their motto is DENY IGNORANCE, and they acknowledge the best way to do that is to have people present all the facts and discuss them with perfect free speech. I tip my hat to the founders and moderators for their integrity.

On the other hand, true conspiracy web sites have an in-house conspiracy theory which they jealously protect with extreme regulation up to and including censorship. I used to post over at Dylan Avery's, "Loose Change" forum, and while I was there I saw two "no planers" banned from the site simply because Dylan Avery didn't want the no planers to come in and make him look idiotic by association. I myself was banned in about two weeks, and in their YOU ARE BANNED message they left for me they didn't say I was banned for being rude or abusive. They said I was banned becuase of the conspiracy related material I was posting, and everyone can guess what THAT would be. 'Tis fallacy, not the truth, that need fear critique, as Patrick Henry once said.

When I say these damned fool 9/11 conspiracy web sites are a bunch of self serving con artists who are attempting to take advantage of people's ignorance for financial gain, I'm not saying it simply to please the moon god, here. Comparing ATS to a conspiracy web site is like comparing Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet to some sleazy porn flick.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
"ATS is way, WAY different from being a conspiracy web site. It's more of a conspiracy clearing house where anyone can come and have their say both pro and con as long as they're civil. Their motto is DENY IGNORANCE, and they acknowledge the best way to do that is to have people present all the facts and discuss them with perfect free speech. I tip my hat to the founders and moderators for their integrity."

Wow! Someone has his tongue stuck up some people's rear ends. I wonder why?


By the way, what is your definition of "perfect free speech"? Deleting the posts of members who do not kiss ATS' rear end and parrot their deceptive, unscrupulous and clandestine agendas?

I can't wait until the PTB at ATS make GOD the all knowing Super Moderator of the 9/11 forums. If anyone deserves this bogus title, it is definitely you!



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join