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.

 

A conversation I had about 9-11...opinions welcome

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Hey guys first off I just want to introduce our characters in this story.

Drew = Me
Spencer = A Canadian guy I talk to and argue with...a lot.

Please point out where we're misinformed if we are.
(Bold text I especially want opinions on)

[8:58:27 PM] Drew: Oh Spencer I got a good point for you
[8:58:37 PM] Drew: do you believe in the demolition cospiracy on 9-11?
[8:59:09 PM] Spencer: Yes, it was 100% organized
[8:59:13 PM] Drew: I believe in most of the conspiracy and that the US knew about the plan on 911 let it happened to capitalize on the war, but people need to stop it with the control demolition bullcrap because it was clearly debunked many times over. Building 7 took 14 secs to callaspes not 7 sec, you have to count from the time the building is crumbling, not when it is falling. Why is it so hard to understand that a plane crashing in a buidling is enough to justify a war? Why overdue it with control demolition?
[8:59:37 PM] Drew: ANSWER SPENCER
[8:59:41 PM] Drew: WHY OVERDUE IT?
[8:59:47 PM] Drew: Isn't the plane enough?
[9:00:04 PM] Spencer: Drew, the building is 49 stories high am i correct?
[9:00:22 PM] Drew: I think
[9:00:52 PM] Spencer: Do you really think a plane that crashes into the building at the top, could cause the whole building to come down.
[9:00:55 PM] Spencer: in 14 seconds
[9:01:40 PM] Spencer: the building has support, it wouldnt just fall that easily
[9:17:51 PM] Drew: [8:59 PM] Drew:




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by drew1749
 


I think there are more tangibles than just oil.
But I agree with Spencer. CD.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by drew1749
but people need to stop it with the control demolition bullcrap because it was clearly debunked many times over.

I don't know where you got the information that it's been "clearly debunked many times over" because it has never been debunked. Furthermore, NIST used guesses, theories, and made-up computer simulations to make their report. At the very beginning of their report, it also states that their report cannot be taken as factual, nor be used in a court of law. Meaning, their report is a theory, nothing more.

Every single piece of evidence points to controlled demolition from the ejections, the timed/synchronous booms, to the flashes with popping or exploding sounds; none of which are visible in fire-induced collapses and all of which are visible in controlled demolitions.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Furthermore, NIST used guesses, theories, and made-up computer simulations to make their report. At the very beginning of their report, it also states that their report cannot be taken as factual, nor be used in a court of law. Meaning, their report is a theory, nothing more.


And yet , you still quote the NIST report quite often , when it appears beneficial to your argument .

Why is that ?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReRun
And yet , you still quote the NIST report quite often , when it appears beneficial to your argument . Why is that ?

The NIST report has no beneficial relevance when trying to determine what happened on 9/11. I usually only quote the NIST report to debunkers to prove them wrong because they don't even know the official theory.


With that said, you got something to add to this thread, or are you just doing one of your drive-by troll-posts?






edit on 25-3-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   


But what purpose did it (control demolition) serve? Wouldn't the blood of the people on the planes and in the offices that were hit have been enough to go to war?


1. Insurance fraud - instantly getting rid of two decrepit asbestos filled buildings which were huge money pits for the Port Authority and receiving a tax free grossly over appraised multi-billion dollar checks in return.

2. Destruction of evidence - getting rid of evidence which would have proven that commercial airliners DID NOT crash into the towers.

3. TV Movie - made for a much more spectacular TV movie showing the Towers collapse, instead of just showing two oxygen starved fires burning out on their own.

4. Pumping up the "OFFICIAL" casualty count. Without the Towers collapsing, you would never get a ridiculous number of casualties like 3,000. Come to think of it, even with those empty Towers collapsing, the number is still ridiculous, however, it is more believable to the delusional masses who do not have a clue about what happened. Without the "illusion" of such a hugh casualty count, the public does not get hoodwinked into supporting despicable unjustified wars.

5. Promote non-sensical debate of 9/11 - without the Towers collapsing, you would not have a decade of worthless distracting debate about the cause of their collapse.

In essence, the 9/11 plan was tailored to take advantage of the immense stupidity and gullible nature of the American public. When you are a delusional moron, even basic arithmetic seems like (fake moon landing) rocket science.

edit on 25-3-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
911 was so obviously an inside job that it is not even worth wasting breath on.

Do you really think if anyone was smart enough to orcestrate something like this they would be smart enough to direct their actions against the people who matter?

In the grand scheme of things who was hurt? A bunch of people whom the string pullers couldn't care less about.
Everyone who was anyone ha an alibi or a reason for being away.

If they had crashed a plane into the yearly meeting of the Bilderburg group or the Vatican I might have been convinced as it stands it was a staged act to instigate another profitable war and the world fell for it 'again'....



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
9/11 was a crime, period.

People get lost in minutia

Cui bono. - To Whose benefit?

cui prodest? Who stands to gain?

The money is the motive and this true in all views of 9/11.

As a people we want a boogie man. This is just greed executed through the barbarism learned by one man hitting another with a stick for his food.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
getting rid of evidence which would have proven that commercial airliners DID NOT crash into the towers.

even with those empty Towers collapsing, the number is still ridiculous

In essence, the 9/11 plan was tailored to take advantage of the immense stupidity and gullible nature of the American public. When you are a delusional moron, even basic arithmetic seems like (fake moon landing) rocket science.

And how much "immense stupidity" does a "delusional moron" have to have to believe that no planes struck the towers, or that the towers were empty? You're peddling blatant disinformation created and put out by "Let's Roll Forum" and "September Clues Forum".

I guess the no-plane threads that are going to the HOAX forum aren't enough to stop peddling the disinformation. Either way, the no-planes disinformation is debunked here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And the "empty towers" disinformation is debunked here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join