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.

 

Glen Beck Say's 911 Truthers Are Dangerous and Compares them to Loughner

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I am not sure what is more alarming.. the fact that Glenn Beck said all this.. or the fact that there is still someone who watches Glenn Beck




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I think it's FAR more dangerous to believe this........................................




or this.........................................




and this.......................................




ESPECIALLY this!




than a so-far innocent man named Loughner.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
"9/11 Truth is No 'Parlor Game'"

Jim Fetzer



A disturbing article on ConsortiumNews.com, “The 9/11 Truth Parlor Game” (15 January, updated 16 January 2011), by Robert Parry, advances the indefensible theory that the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was affected by the shooter's interest in 9/11 truth. While there are good reasons to suspect that the political climate nurtured by the right wing may have influenced him (by targeting a series of representatives using the cross-hairs of a telescopic site, for example), there is no reason to believe than anyone associated with the 9/11 truth movement has targeted any members of Congress—other than attempting to expose them to the evidence that research has unearthed, which has shown that virtually every claim the government has made about 9/11 is provably false.

As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a society of experts and scholars from many different disciplines, including pilots, physicists, structural, mechanical and aeronautical engineers, we have established more than twenty refutations of the government’s official account, including what NIST has had to say about these events, which does not satisfy even minimal standards of scientific acceptability. In this article, for example, Parry maintains that the collapse of the Twin Towers was assured “effect once the beams were weakened by the impact of the planes and the heat from the fires.” But NIST studied 236 samples of steel it selected from the debris and discovered that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F and the other three not above 1,200*F, temperatures far below what would have been required for the steel to weaken, much less melt.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

One of the most remarkable features of the destruction of the Twin Towers is that the top 30 floors of the South Tower began to pivot before the building was blown to pieces, floor by floor. This refutes the claim that they were “collapsing”, insofar as those top 30 floors were not in the position to exert any downward force that might have brought about a collapse. The South Tower was hit second but was the first to be demolished after only an hour of exposure to fires at 500*F, which is the temperature of ordinary office fires. If that were enough to cause steel and concrete buildings to “collapse”, there would be no need for resorting to controlled demolitions. In fact, no steel structure high-rise ever collapsed due to fire before 9/11 or after 9/11. And if our research is well-founded, that did not happen on 9/11 either. It is part of the mythology of 9/11 brought to us by Philip Zelikow, whose area of academic specialization is the creation and maintenance of public myths.

Since Underwriters Laboratory had certified the steel used in the buildings to 2,000*F for three or four hours without incurring any adverse effects by either weakening or melting, the fires could have burned forever and not have caused the towers to collapse. Jet fuel is made of kerosene, which burns at a lower temperature than propane; yet, as Jesse Ventura has observed, his camping stove, which burns propane, does not melt when he uses it. Since the fires were asymmetrically distributed, moreover, if they had burned hot enough or long enough to have caused the steel to weaken, the result would have been some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that occurred. Which means that Parry is trading in 9/11 fiction, not 9/11 fact.


For more, jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...
edit on 28/1/11 by masqua because: Added 'ex' tags



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
$50,000,000 a year buys a lot of input from your employer...in this case Fox News and their commercial sponsors. Methinks GB has sold out.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
The theory that a bunch of guys with box cutters knocked down three WTC buildings with two planes sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me....and what happened to all of the video footage of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon?




 
15
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join