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: Hollywood Speaks Out (Full Lenght Film) - New documentary!

page: 7
126
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Ok, first things first. NEVER in history has a building gone down due to:
Plane impact could have caused some debris to hit the building.
~ Shock wave from the impact could have destabilized the ground below the building.
~ Impact of the planes could have rumbled the ground like an earthquake; thus, WTC7's structure could have been seriously weakened.
~ If there was a subway station below the building, the hollowed out ground could have been weakened enough to give way.

So I think I'll take histories side on this one & safely assume that one of America's key buildings wouldn't go down to any of these reasons.

Prove it.

Prove it with scientific and historical references.


Originally posted by dubiousone
Are you kidding? I just ROFLMAO after reading your post. And you don't the internal contradiction in what you say in that post!

...but, you are asking me to trust you. I do not.
edit on 6/16/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)


I will prove it once you explain how you think any of your ludicrous reasons could take down WTC7, but not do anything to the other WTC's?

When I say never in history, that's because it's not everyday that planes get hijacked & crashed into buildings, whilst another building mysteriously topples down on its own.

Proof of an earthquake affecting a building? You just have to take a look at some of Japan's many structures to see that it's possible for a building to stand after an earthquake. So your logic goes right out of the window.

It seems as though you are making excuse after excuse to find a reason for WTC7 going down of its own accord.

So compare an impact of a plane to a 5.0+ earthquake? There's no comparison...Earthquakes do MUCH more damage.

And to Hooper: I've read the report done by "professionals" & "experts" who just happened to change the 9/11 Commission Report on 9/11 no less than TWO times?

en.wikipedia.org...



The commission was established on November 27, 2002 (442 days after the attack) and their final report was issued on July 22, 2004. The report was originally scheduled for release on May 27, 2004, but a compromise agreed to by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert allowed a sixty-day extension through July 26.


It took 2 years between the establishing of the report, to the 'Final 9/11 Report' issued in 2004, for them to get a final answer? Wow.
edit on 16-6-2011 by SmoKeyHaZe because: link*




posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
I will prove it once you explain how you think any of your ludicrous reasons could take down WTC7, but not do anything to the other WTC's?

As I said in my original answer, the only reason why WTC7 collapsed was due to a terrorist attack. How the attack caused such a wreckage could be anyone's guess. Read my statement again. You will find that I said something very-very specific.

You took my analytical questioning as a declaration of truth.

Second, Wikipedia is not a reliable scientific and historical source of truth.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
My exact post:

Originally posted by Section31
It was a terrorist attack.

Pure and simple.

Any number of circumstances could have taken WTC7 down.
~ Plane impact could have caused some debris to hit the building.
~ Shock wave from the impact could have destabilized the ground below the building.
~ Impact of the planes could have rumbled the ground like an earthquake; thus, WTC7's structure could have been seriously weakened.
~ Falling debris from the two towers could have smacked the ground hard enough; thus, the free falling elements had weakening WTC7's supports in a manner that caused a collapse.
~ If there was a subway station below the building, the hollowed out ground could have been weakened enough to give way.

Any number of uncontrollable things could have happened.

It started with a terrorist attack, and then everything went to hell.

Even though I personally believe what I experienced, I am not going to pretend to know the specifics.

All the alternative 9/11 conspiracy theories are based upon several layers of lies.

Outside of the events that took place on that day, not a single damn conspiracy theorist has a clue.


Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Ok, first things first. NEVER in history has a building gone down due to...

Prove it with reliable scientific and historical references.
edit on 6/16/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sith9157
One thing for sure is that Bill Maher is a freakin moron, and so is Reilly. These people need their worldy news spoon fed to them. I cannot wait until the day the truth of 911 comes to fruition, and the people responsible need to be behind bars for the rest of their lives. I fear we will never know the absolute truth


I have not watched the whole video yet. I agree on O'Reilly. Bill Maher is generally brilliant, spot on, and funny. I haven't yet watched the portions of the video where he appears. The comments I've heard him make on his show about 911 puzzle me. I don't understand how an intelligent individual like him can believe what he has said about 911. On the other hand, challenging the official story of 911 would be career suicide. I wonder if his contract requires him to occasionally say something in support of the O.S.. I read a telling article yesterday about why the media does not criticize the government's version of 911. You can find it here: Daniel Ellsberg says government ordered media not to report on 911
edit on 6/16/2011 by dubiousone because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/16/2011 by dubiousone because: Same as always: trying to correct the bad spelling and grammar.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
I will prove it once you explain how you think any of your ludicrous reasons could take down WTC7, but not do anything to the other WTC's?

As I said in my original answer, the only reason why WTC7 collapsed was due to a terrorist attack. How the attack caused such a wreckage could be anyone's guess. Read my statement again. You will find that I said something very-very specific.

You took my analytical questioning as a declaration of truth.

Second, Wikipedia is not a reliable scientific and historical source of truth.


That still isn't a proper answer unfortunately...How about trying to elaborate with a bit more details as to "the only reason why WTC7 collapsed due to a terrorist attack"...By who & what & how? Witches & flying monkeys?

You just told me everything I need to know. You still do not have a specific answer as to why WTC7 went down, other than "terrorist attack". The FACT that you can't fully explain (nor can anybody else) shows a flaw in your argument.

And yes, Wiki isn't the most reliable source, but you asked for scientific & historical reference & I gave you Japan.

I quoted Wiki to explain the delay between the first & final report, as well as the infrastructure & importance of WTC7.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
reply to post by Section31
 

Do you think it's co-incidence that WTC7 goes down, yet nothing happened to WTC3, 4, 5 & 6? Do you know what kind of information WTC7 had hold of?

Please try to explain & refute the WTC7 collapse then if you do not believe in all this.

It was a terrorist attack.

Crap happens.

That is life.

Life is not fair and horrible things happen.

Regardless about how much of our lives we control, we cannot stop external things from happening.

*shrugs*

Life also moves onward.

When people blame the government (large entities) for a large crisis, they do so because they feel a lack of control. As long as there is something to blame, the world around them feels that much safer.

edit on 6/16/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)


You got that last part bassackwards!

When people feel a lack of control, they cling to authority, in this case the government, and cower away from criticising what it has done, is doing, and will do. Why? Because subconsciously it has become their surrogate parent whom they must believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, cannot, would not, and will not do anything to harm them
edit on 6/16/2011 by dubiousone because: editby]Same as always: trying to correct the bad spelling and grammar.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe
 

...so, I can become a liar like everyone else? Like all the 9/11 conspiracy theorist?

READ MY POST HERE

edit on 6/16/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 





I did do my research and found no accounts of any reconstruction work causing the towers to close down for weeks....Where do you pull this # out of?


How about:



Reiss took the lead in the response to the 1993 terrorist bombing at the WTC, and it was reported that -- "As Special Assistant to the Director, he managed the design and construction team that restored the World Trade Center's infrastructure, allowing the Twin Towers to reopen within a month." [25] At the time he was put in charge of reconstruction, "a job that required him to meet with top brass twice a day." Reiss said about this period -- "there were so many innovations we made.... After the 1993 bombing, we implemented a ten-year redevelopment program. We were spending half a billion dollars on upgrades. It was an engineer's dream." [26] Part of these upgrades involved constructing new command and control centers throughout the buildings. A new Security Command Center was built on the 22nd floor of the north tower (WTC 1), and a new Operations Control Center was constructed in the B1 level of the south tower (WTC2). [27] Additionally, NYC officials responded to the 1993 bombing by establishing The Office of Emergency Management (OEM), over a period of years, "to promote unified operations between and among the various city emergency responder departments." The OEM was controversial, in that it was not appreciated by the NYPD, which already had an emergency center. But ultimately, "on September 11, 2001, the OEM center located at WTC 7 became ineffective as WTC 7 was evacuated." [28] During Rudy Giuliani's run for President, he and his former employee Jerome Hauer traded accusations about who made the choice of putting the OEM in WTC 7. [29]


911review.com...

So actually, construction work had been going on for 10 years starting from '93...This meant construction work was going on fairly regularly in the years leading up to 9/11.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
reply to post by Section31
 

How about:


... After the 1993 bombing, we implemented a ten-year redevelopment program. We were spending half a billion dollars on upgrades. It was an engineer's dream."... [29]

You took it out of context, and then spun it to mean something else.

I do not find that to be responsible reporting.

edit on 6/16/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe
 

...so, I can become a liar like everyone else? Like all the 9/11 conspiracy theorist?

READ MY POST HERE

edit on 6/16/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)


How is that a lie?

How about YOU give me some evidence of buildings going down to any of your reasons?

Don't try to refute me with just asking for something, if you so believe it, then PROVE to my yourself a building has gone down in history for any of your reasons.

Pure logic & probability says chances of buildings going down because of these is extremely small anyway.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe
 

...so, I can become a liar like everyone else? Like all the 9/11 conspiracy theorist?

READ MY POST HERE

edit on 6/16/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)


How is that a lie?

What did my post actually say to you?

Does anyone else see my answer clearly?


Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Pure logic & probability says chances of buildings going down because of these is extremely small anyway.

Second, prove it.

edit on 6/16/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe
 

...so, I can become a liar like everyone else? Like all the 9/11 conspiracy theorist?

READ MY POST HERE

edit on 6/16/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)


How is that a lie?

What did my post actually say to you?

Does anyone else see my answer clearly?


Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Pure logic & probability says chances of buildings going down because of these is extremely small anyway.

Second, prove it.

edit on 6/16/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)


No. You're answer is not very clear at all I'm afraid.

Your post said a number of uncontrolled things could have happened.

Then I said that, such a thing happening from one of your many well-thought out reasons has never happened.

Then you say that's a lie, so prove it?

So I say, how about proving it's NOT a lie then?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe
 

...so, I can become a liar like everyone else? Like all the 9/11 conspiracy theorist?

READ MY POST HERE

edit on 6/16/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)


How is that a lie?

What did my post actually say to you?

Does anyone else see my answer clearly?


Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Pure logic & probability says chances of buildings going down because of these is extremely small anyway.

Second, prove it.

edit on 6/16/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)


He doesn't have to prove it anymore at this late juncture ten years after the event. It has been proven beyond any credible doubt time and time again. You go do your own research. You can do it right here on the ATS website. It's all there to see for anyone willing to let go of their belief in the infallibility of their Government, Mommy, Daddy, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny (did I omit anyone's treasured fairytale?).
edit on 6/16/2011 by dubiousone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I have come across a myriad of clues that lead me to believe there is a cover up. When I speak of these things to my girlfriend, she is silent. She's not normally silent, and we usually converse freely. I recently asked her why she is silent when I present the puzzling evidence to her. She said, "There's no use even thinking about it, because there is nothing we can do about it." It then occurred to me that I've herd this from other people. I wonder how big the percentage is who think this way. I wonder if it's big enough that the truth could be told by the people who knew all along, and nothing would change.
edit on 16-6-2011 by gentledissident because: people not objects



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
No. You're answer is not very clear at all I'm afraid.

Your post said a number of uncontrolled things could have happened.

Then I said that, such a thing happening from one of your many well-thought out reasons has never happened.


Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Don't try to refute me with just asking for something, if you so believe it, then PROVE to my yourself a building has gone down in history for any of your reasons.


When did I once say that any one of those were factual? If you read my damn post correctly, I said, "I do not know the specifics".

If I were to declare them as being 100% factual, I would be doing the same thing the 9/11 theorist are doing? I would be lying. I am not going to make up stories.

According to what I had experienced on screen, terrorists attacked the United States on 9/11/01.

How that attack took down WTC7 could be any number of ways, and not a single person on this board can prove either way.

Read my posts clearly.

edit on 6/16/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 


Thank you. Woudln't it actually be more credible if people like this guy could actually try & PROVE us wrong, rather than saying: "no, you're wrong, give me proof"...Yet hold no substance in their own argument that they believe in so much.

Other than "WTC7 went down to a terrorist attack (with no elaboration) or "it could have been a number of uncontrollable things"

How about proving to us that 9/11 was legit? You're only proof is the 9/11 Final Commission Report, which, quite frankly holds as much substance as my toilet tissue paper.
edit on 16-6-2011 by SmoKeyHaZe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Do you know what is great about this.

Regardless about the fiction that is being spun in this thread, absolutely nothing will come from it all. 9/11 conspiracy theories will end up becoming a massive myth as time passes.



edit on 6/16/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
reply to post by dubiousone
 


Thank you. Woudln't it actually be more credible if people like this guy could actually try & PROVE us wrong, rather than saying: "no, you're wrong, give me proof"...Yet hold no substance in their own argument that they believe in so much.

Other than "WTC7 went down to a terrorist attack (with no elaboration) or "it could have been a number of uncontrollable things"

How about proving to us that 9/11 was legit? You're only proof is the 9/11 Final Commission Report, which, quite frankly holds as much substance as my toilet tissue paper.
edit on 16-6-2011 by SmoKeyHaZe because: (no reason given)



You are the one making the outrages claim that it was an inside job therefore the proof is on you.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
No. You're answer is not very clear at all I'm afraid.

Your post said a number of uncontrolled things could have happened.

Then I said that, such a thing happening from one of your many well-thought out reasons has never happened.

Then you say that's a lie, so prove it?

So I say, how about proving it's NOT a lie then?



Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Don't try to refute me with just asking for something, if you so believe it, then PROVE to my yourself a building has gone down in history for any of your reasons.


When did I once say that any one of those were factual? If you read my damn post correctly, I said, "I do not know the specifics".

If I were to declare them as being 100% factual, I would be doing the same thing the 9/11 theorist are doing? I would be lying. I am not going to make up stories.

According to what I had experienced on screen, terrorists attacked the United States on 9/11/01.

How that attack took down WTC7 could be any number of ways, and not a single person on this board can prove either way.

Read my posts clearly.
edit on 6/16/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)


You need research & evidence. Something that 9/11 theorists have given time & time again...Only to be answered with a simple "coulda been anything".

If this were a Court of Law, you're only evidence to go against it, is the 9/11 'Final Commission Report'...then I'm afraid to say a lot of the 9/11 theorists would be winning, as our research blasts that report out of the water. Yes, your reasons AREN'T factual, nor do they hold substance!

Well, I'm 100% CERTAIN that WTC7 didn't go down due to the official reports of "constructure failure from the heat & fire of the Twin Towers...Otherwise, the same bloody thing would have happened to WTC6, which stood in-between the Towers & WTC7.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
reply to post by dubiousone
 


Thank you. Woudln't it actually be more credible if people like this guy could actually try & PROVE us wrong, rather than saying: "no, you're wrong, give me proof"...Yet hold no substance in their own argument that they believe in so much.

Other than "WTC7 went down to a terrorist attack (with no elaboration) or "it could have been a number of uncontrollable things"

How about proving to us that 9/11 was legit? You're only proof is the 9/11 Final Commission Report, which, quite frankly holds as much substance as my toilet tissue paper.
edit on 16-6-2011 by SmoKeyHaZe because: (no reason given)


The time for debating what happened has passed. Something needs to be done. It seems there is nothing new being debated about what happened on 911. An investigation completely independent of the U.S. Government needs to be opened. That is the only way the truth will be uncovered. It seems that everyone who has spoken before they enter government service of having a new investigation quickly became silent on the subject or had a 180 degree turn about once they enter government service. Does their job orientataon include warnings of dire consequences for daring to challenge the O.S.? Obama led us to believe while campaigning that he would lead the search for truth if he's elected. He quickly betrayed us on that one as well as other promises.

You can debate about this forever and continue to get nowhere.

The O.S. shills play their game very well. They love to engage you in pointless debate that consists of nothing more than saying the same old thing for the millionth time. By doing so they serve their masters well and more than earn their pay. It prevents any progress from being made on this issue. In the meantime the profiteers for whose benefit 911 occurred are eating, drinking, whoring, and laughing heartily while those with a sincere desire for truth and justice are kept chasing their own tails.

edit on 6/16/2011 by dubiousone because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
126
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join