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 Flag Around Which to Rally!

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Dear friends...

Like most, I have been both fascinated and dismayed by the events surrounding 9/11. On that day, I was an officer in the 82d Airborne Division, and like most of my countrymen at the time, assumed that the story describing those events was accurate and served to properly identified the perpetrators of said crime. However, in the years that have followed, the undeniable evidence that the official story is at best inaccurate & at worst false and willfully deceptive has not escaped my attention nor my efforts to view the world through the eyes of common sense.

Here's the problem with this debate as I have seen it thus far. There are so many inconsistencies with the story of that day that it becomes, for the average citizen, simply overwhelming. I remember the first time that I saw a 9/11 truther on the MSM, it was a professor from Texas A&M disclosing his "no-plane" or "tv-manipulation" theory (the theory that no planes hit the WTC buildings and were added digitally later to the footage). This is something that I myself don't buy, and is probably the worst initial presentation of 9/11 truth to a new initiate of said movement. In retrospect, it is actually somewhat revelatory of the MSM that they might have wished to discredit the movement by choosing this theory as the vanguard representation of the 9/11 truth.

Of course, there are many other valid theories and arguments, some with scientific proof, some with empirical data; nano-thermite, missile hitting the Pentagon, omissions from the 9/11 report, etc. (the list is massive). In order to reach the common citizen who is not involved in these discussions, however, I feel that we need ONE incident of the day, one issue and inconsistency, a single event to serve as the poster for the truth movement, the Flag around which we rally. I certainly know what I believe this rallying flag should be, but that doesn't make me right.

What I want to know is, if there was just ONE THING that we presented in representation of the 9/11 truth movement, what should it be? What should the "flag" of 9/11 truth look like?

www.youtube.com...





posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by robinmorningstar
What I want to know is, if there was just ONE THING that we presented in representation of the 9/11 truth movement, what should it be? What should the "flag" of 9/11 truth look like?


The problem is wanting a flag. For most people this is an emotional not a logical one. So the propaganda war is about swaying people's emotions.

A skyscraper is an inanimate object and so is an airliner. If an airliner with 10,000 gallons of fuel could TOTALLY DESTROY a 400,000+ ton skyscraper in less than TWO HOURS it should be easy to explain with COMPLETE and ACCURATE DATA on the skyscraper.

Skyscrapers must hold themselves up against gravity so the distribution must accomplish that. So why don't nearly all architects and structural engineers demand and discuss that information. So if the destruction of the buildings by airliners is truly physically impossible then a lot of so called professionals are practically accomplices after the fact for not proving it to everyone in NINE YEARS. Where is accurate distriution of steel and concrete data on the buildings?

I think the movie 9/11 Mysteries pretty much covers the issues. So we have the problem of all of the people who can believe the physically impossible for whatever reason.

How long before grade school kids begin laughing at the US for this nonsense and for how many decades will they be laughing?

But the other side of the problem is all of the people who are supposed to teach physics in our high schools and colleges. How do they explain letting it go for NINE YEARS?

psik



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


"You are an experienced contributor to ATS. Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter. "

I think the movement should rally around a few facts.

1. insider trading
2. pentagon videos being released
3. building 7



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Skyscrapers must hold themselves up against gravity so the distribution must accomplish that. So why don't nearly all architects and structural engineers demand and discuss that information. So if the destruction of the buildings by airliners is truly physically impossible then a lot of so called professionals are practically accomplices after the fact for not proving it to everyone in NINE YEARS. Where is accurate distriution of steel and concrete data on the buildings?


Ummm ....

scitation.aip.org...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

www.cs.purdue.edu...

www.computer.org...

link.aip.org.../133/308/1

en.cnki.com.cn...

I know, not the kind of scholars you are used to, but would you like more?
edit on 14-1-2011 by SirMike because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Well, firstly I'm sorry if I made it seem as though I was looking for an actual "flag", I meant that more as a metaphore for a singular point. Perhaps my inclusion of the flag I made was a bit confusing to the point.

Secondly, I understand what you're saying, but my point is that I was looking for something visceral, something undeniable that doesn't require a lot of convincing or words or logic even. I know that might smack in the face of some intellectual tenents built into some's belief systems, but none-the-less, a lot of people simply won't engage their mind's in this debate. They need the cold water in the face to shake them. That's what I was talking about. A lot of these short or long films build the argument perfectly, but can you get people to a) watch them, or b) follow them through a myriad of arguments. For many the answer is no, but you can get them to watch a 10 second video or a picture or a point that is so undeniable that the seed of doubt is sewn. Perhaps I didn't pose this thread properly. Like all...still learning. Peace...



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Skyscrapers must hold themselves up against gravity so the distribution must accomplish that. So why don't nearly all architects and structural engineers demand and discuss that information. So if the destruction of the buildings by airliners is truly physically impossible then a lot of so called professionals are practically accomplices after the fact for not proving it to everyone in NINE YEARS. Where is accurate distriution of steel and concrete data on the buildings?


Ummm ....

scitation.aip.org...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

www.cs.purdue.edu...

www.computer.org...

link.aip.org.../133/308/1

en.cnki.com.cn...

I know, not the kind of scholars you are used to, but would you like more?
edit on 14-1-2011 by SirMike because: (no reason given)


It amazes me how much people BELIEVE in sources that they RESPECT for some reason but don't put their brains in gear and check for themselves.

Watch the simulation video made by PURDUE.

www.youtube.com...

Watch the video and see if the core columns move in unison due to the impact.. When the plane hits the external columns that is going to apply force to the floor assemblies which will push against the core.

The NIST said the south tower deflected 12 inches horizontally at the 70th floor which was 130 feet below the impact point. So extrapolation indicates the movement must have been 15 inches at the impact level. That is based on empirical data collected on that day not a simulation based on assumptions and mathematics.

So how does Purdue make a simulation with no movement? They get to just throw the conservation of momentum out the window and CLAIM it is scientific?

It should take any great scientific knowledge to figure out that every skyscraper must support more weight further down. Therefore more steel must be on levels farther down. Therefore it gets heavier and must be supported by more steel farther down. So why haven't ALL OF THE SCIENTISTS who have anything to say about this been asking about the distribution of steel in the towers? How can it be SCIENTIFIC without that information.

But the NIST does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete in the towers.

You don't think grade school kids could perform and understand this experiment?

www.youtube.com...

I have emailed Purdue. The two people that responded referred me to Prof. Sozen. But I had emailed him too. I never got a response from him. Skyscrapers can't hold themselves up without getting the distributions of steel and concrete correct so analyzing whatever happened to WTC 1 & 2 without that information is scientific nonsense. Mass is the big factor in conservation of momentum. But the amount of steel affects the amount of energy required each level so that is going to affect the absorption of kinetic energy of the falling mass.

psik



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join