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 question for believers or 'OSers'....

page: 21
17
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 





In the case of 9/11 you have to ask yourself why the government would do this and if crashing 4 planes with a very high likelihood of something going on would be the route they would go. In my opinion trying to pull off an event like 9/11 while keeping it secret would be far too risky and i'm sure there would be many other things they could have done with less chance of their plan being exposed.


They would do this to cover up massive corruption.

They wouldn't have used planes because planes can and will be identified, not to mention planes couldn't physically accomplish the goal like good old fashioned missiles and explosives.

They would not need to worry about being exposed because the vast majority of people in the western world will believe the media over their own common sense.

From what I see, American credulity is the biggest hurdle to world peace:


“We must remember that in time of war what is said on the enemy's side of the front is always propaganda, and what is said on our side of the front is truth and righteousness, the cause of humanity and a crusade for peace.” – Walter Lippmann


Propaganda Inc.
edit on 19-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


But look at American leaders track record with cover-ups. It's not very good.

Eisenhower and the U2
Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs
Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin
Nixon couldn't even get 2 guys to bug an office without getting caught

You really think Bush is going to pull off something this big and complex and have 1000 things work flawlessly and the amount of people with knowledge not leak anything out?

If they needed a false flag event it would have been wiser to just have single individuals set off multiple bombs in different cities and create a link to Al-Queida.

If you need to get rid of an ant hill you don't drop a nuclear bomb on it when there are far more simpler methods with the same results.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I am following where the evidence leads me.

You are rationalizing.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I am using common sense.

I could set off a bomb in my house than walk through later and observe all the strange things that are unexplainable in there. Why did this happen or why did that happen and this is a common thing in very chaotic situations.

People think that because not everything is black and white that something sinister is going on. I have no idea why the third building fell but that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation for it. It just means we don't have the ability to analyze everything properly and understand it.

Weird things happen especially with these two massive towers falling. If you recreated the event of a plane smashing into the pentagon 1000 times how many of those would produce the exact same result?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Yankee451
 


But look at American leaders track record with cover-ups. It's not very good.

Eisenhower and the U2
Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs
Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin
Nixon couldn't even get 2 guys to bug an office without getting caught

You really think Bush is going to pull off something this big and complex and have 1000 things work flawlessly and the amount of people with knowledge not leak anything out?

If they needed a false flag event it would have been wiser to just have single individuals set off multiple bombs in different cities and create a link to Al-Queida.

If you need to get rid of an ant hill you don't drop a nuclear bomb on it when there are far more simpler methods with the same results.



don't you understand, they put bush there because he is so stupid that they could tell him that it was part of a religious thing that was going to be for the better for the american people, he fell for it hook line and sinker..



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I am using common sense.

I could set off a bomb in my house than walk through later and observe all the strange things that are unexplainable in there. Why did this happen or why did that happen and this is a common thing in very chaotic situations.

People think that because not everything is black and white that something sinister is going on. I have no idea why the third building fell but that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation for it. It just means we don't have the ability to analyze everything properly and understand it.

Weird things happen especially with these two massive towers falling. If you recreated the event of a plane smashing into the pentagon 1000 times how many of those would produce the exact same result?



it means YOU don't have the ability to explain it, i have plenty of ability, thread wrecker.....



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 


I agree that Bush was not the smartest or more aware but it still doesn't change the fact that this is overkill on a massive scale for what they wanted 9/11 to accomplish and the risk of exposure for them is far too great for it to be considered anything other than what it was.

If you were asked by TPTB to come up with a false flag that accomplished these goals yet minimized risk would you seriously consider hijacking 4 planes and crashing them into buildings? Doubtful



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Interesting story.

Can you tell me your take on Project Hammer?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Not familiar with that one i'm afraid.

I usually avoid 9/11 also since it's rather pointless to debate people who belive it was a cover-up.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Not familiar with that one i'm afraid.

I usually avoid 9/11 also since it's rather pointless to debate people who belive it was a cover-up.



well then, why do you do it? that's even more of a mystery than anything else, is why you guys even try....



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 





Not familiar with that one i'm afraid.

I usually avoid 9/11 also since it's rather pointless to debate people who belive it was a cover-up.


Golly, but you strut around like you've already got it all figured out.

It's also kind of pointless to debate people who are too lazy to do a little research for themselves...are you avoiding subjects that contradict your preexisting beliefs?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by patternfinder
 


I agree that Bush was not the smartest or more aware but it still doesn't change the fact that this is overkill on a massive scale for what they wanted 9/11 to accomplish and the risk of exposure for them is far too great for it to be considered anything other than what it was.

If you were asked by TPTB to come up with a false flag that accomplished these goals yet minimized risk would you seriously consider hijacking 4 planes and crashing them into buildings? Doubtful



it apparently didn't have any risk at all...there are people like you that believe the story hook line and sinker...they aren't in jail, so it worked just fine....it wasn't overkill, they even said in PNAC papers that they needed a new pearl harbor event in order to get the americans behind their idea of tremendous military fund increases and taking over the world by force....i can point you to their own website where it is still written if you would like......



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by patternfinder
 


I agree that Bush was not the smartest or more aware but it still doesn't change the fact that this is overkill on a massive scale for what they wanted 9/11 to accomplish and the risk of exposure for them is far too great for it to be considered anything other than what it was.

If you were asked by TPTB to come up with a false flag that accomplished these goals yet minimized risk would you seriously consider hijacking 4 planes and crashing them into buildings? Doubtful




that's why no one hijacked the planes....they used the same technology that was already available for thirty years, it's called remote control aircraft.....



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by kro32
 





Not familiar with that one i'm afraid.

I usually avoid 9/11 also since it's rather pointless to debate people who belive it was a cover-up.


Golly, but you strut around like you've already got it all figured out.

It's also kind of pointless to debate people who are too lazy to do a little research for themselves...are you avoiding subjects that contradict your preexisting beliefs?


So how is that proof going since you've got it figured out? If it's so obvious that it was done by the government why aren't you marching your proof into a court of law to bring these people to justice?

What's that? Oh you don't have any solid proof just theories.

I see.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 


Thread wrecker?? Why, because he is rational and isn't falling for the weak minded delusion? He was polite and didn't say anything rude..

Just because he is able to look at something objectively, not with drama induced, immature fantasy??

He is spot on.. You have lost grip with reality.. Our side is riddled with facts and evidence... Your side is riddled with assumptions and opinions used to force facts. The 9/11 conspiracy is "Santa" for loosely wrapped dreamers. Period!

Look through this thread alone.. You still have truthers that think there is anti air at the pentagon... You still have people that don't think there were any planes at all..

We have reached a point where truthers can not and will not ever, no matter what, admit that the OS is even slightly right.. Simply because, they would look like complete fools, that have invested a large amount of time and effort into a delusion... It's a sad position truthers are in..


Truthers have several claims about how planes could not have done the damage... Because it is not "normal"

Are these things normal






Try duplicating the above./. try using physics to explain in detail how either is possible..

Dream on little dreamer!
edit on 8/19/2011 by ShaunHatfield because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by patternfinder
 


Thread wrecker?? Why, because he is rational and isn't falling for the weak minded delusion? He was polite and didn't say anything rude..

Just because he is able to look at something objectively, not with drama induced, immature fantasy??

He is spot on.. You have lost grip with reality.. Our side is riddled with facts and evidence... Your side is riddled with assumptions and opinions used to force facts. The 9/11 conspiracy is "Santa" for loosely wrapped dreamers. Period!

Look through this thread alone.. You still have truthers that think there is anti air at the pentagon... You still have people that don't think there were any planes at all..

We have reached a point where truthers can not and will not ever, no matter what, admit that the OS is even slightly right.. Simply because, they would look like complete fools, that have invested a large amount of time and effort into a delusion... It's a sad position truthers are in..



i'm a truther and you think you know me? you're trying to tell me why I think what i do? how did you get to be such an expert on ME? and yes he is a thread wrecker because all he is doing is coming on here and calling people ignorant for their beliefs....why are you guys even worried about what we think????? no one will answer that for me, so why don't you answer it????



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 


Why do we care? The same reason you do.. Your not on here pushing for a court case.. Your supplying us with a healthy dose of your opinion... Likewise!

Do I need to know you? If I see a guy in a short bus, with a helmet, drool guard and all, should I assume he is the next president, or should I assume something different?

New members could essentially come on to ATS, thinking that the whole planet had lost their minds..... IF us OS'ers weren't here to inject sanity into a otherwise insane theory.. Just my 2 cents, got change?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by patternfinder
 


Why do we care? The same reason you do.. Your not on here pushing for a court case.. Your supplying us with a healthy dose of your opinion... Likewise!

Do I need to know you? If I see a guy in a short bus, with a helmet, drool guard and all, should I assume he is the next president, or should I assume something different?

New members could essentially come on to ATS, thinking that the whole planet had lost their minds..... IF us OS'ers weren't here to inject sanity into a otherwise insane theory.. Just my 2 cents, got change?



i haven't seen a single thread where you OSers have changed anyone's minds....i've watched you try to belittle anyone with a differing opinion, your post is a great example of this.....how is that injecting sanity into a subject? i don't believe in ufo's but i don't go to those threads and put them down for their beliefs....i ignore them...because they can believe it if they want, it doesn't bother me....but you guys come straight to this thread and start bashing, now who is the sane one?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by GenRadek
 


The dynamic force of the added weight of the plane, coupled with the shock of the floors above the undamaged floor?

Again, wasn't that area undamaged, and wasn't it already supporting the weight above it, and wasn't it designed to hold much more weight than that?


Actually its the dynamic weight of 15 floors with additional mass joining in during the collapse. First it was 15 floors impacting the floor directly below it. Then that floor becomes a part of the falling mass and the floor below that is being impacted by 16 floors. Then the one below that is impacted with 17 floors. And so on, and so on, and so on.

Ok so the columns still managed to hold up the damaged section, until the fires and damage caused the structure to give way. Once collapse started, there was nothing to stop it. You have to remember the quirks of a design like the WTC. The floor section itself was not giving vertical support to the tower. It was not supporting the weight of the Tower, just the floor it was given. The floor trusses themselves gave stability and support to the exterior and interior columns. The interior columns gave vertical stability. The exterior gave horizontal stability in the wind, while the floor trusses gave horizontal support to the columns. Removal of the trusses left the columns freestanding. Once the top segment began its descent, it fell as one piece, impacting the floor below it. The floor below was not meant to take on the dynamic load of 15 floors landing on it at nearly 20mph. Of course the truss seats failed and snapped, allow that floor to now join in the collapsing mass, impacting the floor below. There was no vertical structure to arrest the collapse. The floors gave no vertical support, like how they do in traditional steel box skeletons, like the Empire State Building. The core managed to barely survive heavily damaged, but that was the result of the top segment also hitting the top sections of it, destroying them. The exterior columns were pushed out by the forces, or they fell away as it is described, being peeled open like a banana. This also accounts for why the columns were thought to have been "ejected" when in reality, they were just tipping over and falling away due to the sheer height.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


That board was planted there in the concrete curb. Everyone knows that wood cant beat concrete! It was the same team that planted the explosives inside the WTCs and the same ones that planted the debris and light pole on the cab at the Pentagon! Are you blind? They staged it!! You can see where the concrete was broken up and the wood inserted for effect. Its all a lie!!





[/sarcasm]






top topics



 
17
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join