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: 25
17
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY... ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ

This forum is on "Strict Terms and Conditions of Use ENFORCEMENT" until further notice.

"Strict Enforcement" means:
Any Member lowering themselves to name calling, no matter how innocuous, will be red tag warned on the spot, no questions asked.

Any Member who, after receiving a red tag warn in this forum, commits another breach of the TAC will be post banned on the spot, no questions asked.

One warning is all you get before being post banned.

Any posts, replies or new threads, that are about Member personalities instead of the issues will be red tag warned and deleted.




posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


It is the North Tower only you are considering. Your task is to show how a plane can explain the damage better than missiles:

letsrollforums.com...
letsrollforums.com...


I think the first hit on the North Tower wasn't in fact a 'plane'.

Over on YouTube Anthony Lawson has a video where he basically says: "Well, if it wasn't a plane (refuting 'no planes') then why was it even filmed? Why film it if it wasn't even a plane like?" (Assuming it was a Set-Up etc.)

Hmmm yeah...

And I was thinking about that. Why? Why film it by 'accident'? Why?

If it's phony why catch the first hit by seeming accident? Like what's the purpose? Of the hit and the whole thing really?

I think that's important.

My first thought on why catch the 'plane' by 'accident' was it makes a good convincing story, like, "Oh wow it was a plane and we lucked out and even caught a glimpse of it etc."

My second thought was that it had to be. There HAD TO BE a shot of the first hit to show it wasn't just a bomb having been planted and detonated. Because then people would wonder how it got there. No, there had to be a shot, a clip, some kind of evidence that the hit came from Outside in.

The first hit clip was caught 'accidently' to show it was a hit from Outside and not just a preplanted bomb. I mean who thinks it was a bomb? No one. Everyone thinks it was a 'plane' coming in from Outside. Clever no?

The third thing I was thinking is it wasn't a plane because it was a surprise attack, more so than the South Tower etc.

People might expect a second plane and begin to evacuate both buildings after the first hit. A second plane could be anticipated, but the first one was unexpected. And that is very very important. Why? Because it was meant for a purpose that required stealth and not just to hit a building etc.

People have to quit looking at the Vicsim lists and fake people who died on 911 and just take a tally of the ones who definitely did die and who exactly they were and what they had going on in their lives. Like who died when the stealth hit was perpetrated on the North Tower? Anybody? It was a surprise stealth hit on a specific floor and side of the building and not just a strike on the Tower itself any old place, surely.

The second hit may have been a plane (anticipated; even expected, with much better video) but the first hit likely wasn't because you can more easily see an entire plane coming.

Cheers



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I've never bought the "no planes" theory, there is just too much evidence pointing to actual airplanes. There are the videos, the witness testimonies, and then the outline of the airplane in the building.

I don't think that's the right area to approach official story believers from, because it sounds pretty unbelievable. Even from a "truthers" perspective I find that theory completely impossible.

Now I do believe that explosives were used to bring down the twin towers after the airplane struck the building, setting the stage for the explosives to finish the job making it appear that the airplanes were the cause, but I find the theory that no planes even hit the building completely incredulous.
edit on 19-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 




I've never bought the "no planes" theory, there is just too much evidence pointing to actual airplanes. There are the videos, the witness testimonies, and then the outline of the airplane in the building.


Yep, and unfortunately it's tough to discuss it on this forum without being hustled to the door like a red headed step child.

None of we no planers were born this way though...we all shared the same disbelief as you, and for the same reasons.

I only ended up here because nothing else fit so I had nowhere else to look for answers, but believe it or not, they're all here.


edit on 20-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 





My second thought was that it had to be. There HAD TO BE a shot of the first hit to show it wasn't just a bomb having been planted and detonated. Because then people would wonder how it got there. No, there had to be a shot, a clip, some kind of evidence that the hit came from Outside in.


That's the key right there.

This whole thing is a big propaganda hoax. As improbable as it sounds, it is possible, whereas what we were shown on TV is clearly impossible.

It's all a bad script...all the "foreigners" to make it sound like we're all in this together, so the whole world can get good and outraged at those terrorists, etc, etc.

I don't want to hijack this thread though.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


What thousands of people saw, with their own eyes, is what happened.

Like I have repeatedly said, the OP is full of errors. When you start at a place of, well ignorance and being misinformed, your ability to make informned conclusions is greatly impaired. Get all the facts straight and you'll see that all the demo nonsense is wild crap.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 





What thousands of people saw, with their own eyes, is what happened.


You spoke to all of those thousands, and looked into their eyes?

You're just repeating what thousands of peaople say, not what they saw.



Get all the facts straight...


Good idea.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 





What thousands of people saw, with their own eyes, is what happened.


You spoke to all of those thousands, and looked into their eyes?

You're just repeating what thousands of peaople say, not what they saw.



Get all the facts straight...


Good idea.



This is again, where you're faith in your beliefs, not your desire for accuracy comes in... in any other circumstance in which thousands of eye witnesses, many who lost loved ones on the day, said they saw the same thing, well, that would be considered "proof". IT wouldn't matter that a few people believed some crazy nonsense, the weight of those thousands of people would be enough... add onto that hundreds of photos, videos, etc. and it's pretty much unassailable...

in fact the only kind of "belief" that can withstand that sort of evidential weight is "faith".

But, faith isn't good enough in a case like this. Trusting your instinct isn't evidence.

If you REALLY REALLY want answers, they exist, but you'll have to be brave enough to question your own faith... and that's not easy.

But, if you get the courage to look at what percentage of truther claims are simply fabrications (like in the OP) and really ask some basic questions, then you can maybe also find enough bravery to question your own faith.

Some basic facts:

- There's no such thing as "top down demolitions"
- No witnesses saw timed explosions
- Fire in Bldg 7 went un-fought for hours, and all the firemen on the scene expected it to collapse
- None of the building ACTUALLY looked like demos
- The Pentagon didn't have a missile defence system
- Dozens of eye-witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon; their testimony is readily available, many of them weren't government employees (here's some of that: 911research.wtc7.net...)

Much of this info is known by Truthers, but they continue to spread misinformation. This thread contains some of that misinformation. Ask why would Truthers continue to lie, why? It's to protect their world-view and it allows them to maintain their faith.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


i think your first mistake is to assume anything, especially about me.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I'm not assuming, I'm responding to what you're writing...



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

.

Some basic facts:

- There's no such thing as "top down demolitions"
- No witnesses saw timed explosions
- Fire in Bldg 7 went un-fought for hours, and all the firemen on the scene expected it to collapse
- None of the building ACTUALLY looked like demos
- The Pentagon didn't have a missile defence system
- Dozens of eye-witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon; their testimony is readily available, many of them weren't government employees (here's some of that: 911research.wtc7.net...)

Much of this info is known by Truthers, but they continue to spread misinformation. This thread contains some of that misinformation. Ask why would Truthers continue to lie, why? It's to protect their world-view and it allows them to maintain their faith.


your fact #1 you say no such thing as top down demolition, here is a video of one



your fact #2 no witnesses to the timed explosions, these witnesses beg to differ, there is more, visit this site to see the rest 911review.com...




Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22] ... and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28] The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.

Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6] We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.

Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202] But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53] we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.



your fact #3 listen to the video below where the newsman said that no one expected it to fall and that there was triage set up all around it and he hoped that they were far enough from the building...the firemen didn't expect it to come down
your fact #4 i refer you to this video



your fact #5 doesn't matter

your fact #7 prove they didn't work for the government....



edit on 20-8-2011 by patternfinder because: coppied it to my notepad

edit on 20-8-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 





This is again, where you're faith in your beliefs, not your desire for accuracy comes in... in any other circumstance in which thousands of eye witnesses, many who lost loved ones on the day, said they saw the same thing, well, that would be considered "proof".


Here you assume there were thousands of eye witnesses, and then you include "lost loved ones", which you also assume, as I'm pretty sure you've never met or spoken to anyone who claims they have lost a loved one...or you included "lost loved ones" to reach for emotional impact. Are you using logic or emotion when you think?



IT wouldn't matter that a few people believed some crazy nonsense, the weight of those thousands of people would be enough


Here you are assuming only a "few people", and you included the always necessary "crazy nonsense", and then you're back to assuming "those thousands of people would be enough.

It is only crazy to someone who hasn't done the research, ie, someone who is assuming.



in fact the only kind of "belief" that can withstand that sort of evidential weight is "faith".


In fact, I have followed where the evidence leads me. My convictions are based on research, history, and facts. You on the other hand, provide no facts, nothing to back up your beliefs, except blind faith and assumptions. If your tender sensibilities were able to withstand the shock, you might be able to read why I reach my conclusions, and offer an argument as to where I'm wrong.



But, faith isn't good enough in a case like this. Trusting your instinct isn't evidence.

If you REALLY REALLY want answers, they exist, but you'll have to be brave enough to question your own faith... and that's not easy.


Couldn't agree more.




- There's no such thing as "top down demolitions"
- No witnesses saw timed explosions
- Fire in Bldg 7 went un-fought for hours, and all the firemen on the scene expected it to collapse
- None of the building ACTUALLY looked like demos
- The Pentagon didn't have a missile defence system
- Dozens of eye-witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon; their testimony is readily available, many of them weren't government employees (here's some of that: 911research.wtc7.net...)


- as far as you know
- Many alleged witnesses did indeed describe multiple explosions
- not according to the photographs
- you are assuming you can trust the available videos
- so what? The initial report was a truck bomb, and the punchout hole looks like a wall breaching kit.
- Dozens of eyewitnesses can lie, and dozens more couldn't find any evidence of a plane. All it would take is to release all the security footage to quiet this issue down, now why don't they release that? Any assumptions there?



Much of this info is known by Truthers, but they continue to spread misinformation.

Much of it is hogwash, but you repeat it as if it was fact. Assumumptions?



This thread contains some of that misinformation. Ask why would Truthers continue to lie, why? It's to protect their world-view and it allows them to maintain their faith.


Ironic isn't it, that we're not called "911 liars".

Here's what Goebbels thought about the truth and it's relationship to the State:


"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State." -- Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels


www.questionwar.com...


edit on 20-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 





This is again, where you're faith in your beliefs, not your desire for accuracy comes in... in any other circumstance in which thousands of eye witnesses, many who lost loved ones on the day, said they saw the same thing, well, that would be considered "proof".


Here you assume there were thousands of eye witnesses, and then you include "lost loved ones", which you also assume, as I'm pretty sure you've never met or spoken to anyone who claims they have lost a loved one...or you included "lost loved ones" to reach for emotional impact. Are you using logic or emotion when you think?



IT wouldn't matter that a few people believed some crazy nonsense, the weight of those thousands of people would be enough


Here you are assuming only a "few people", and you included the always necessary "crazy nonsense", and then you're back to assuming "those thousands of people would be enough.

It is only crazy to someone who hasn't done the research, ie, someone who is assuming.



in fact the only kind of "belief" that can withstand that sort of evidential weight is "faith".


In fact, I have followed where the evidence leads me. My convictions are based on research, history, and facts. You on the other hand, provide no facts, nothing to back up your beliefs, except blind faith and assumptions. If your tender sensibilities were able to withstand the shock, you might be able to read why I reach my conclusions, and offer an argument as to where I'm wrong.



But, faith isn't good enough in a case like this. Trusting your instinct isn't evidence.

If you REALLY REALLY want answers, they exist, but you'll have to be brave enough to question your own faith... and that's not easy.


Couldn't agree more.




- There's no such thing as "top down demolitions"
- No witnesses saw timed explosions
- Fire in Bldg 7 went un-fought for hours, and all the firemen on the scene expected it to collapse
- None of the building ACTUALLY looked like demos
- The Pentagon didn't have a missile defence system
- Dozens of eye-witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon; their testimony is readily available, many of them weren't government employees (here's some of that: 911research.wtc7.net...)


- as far as you know
- Many alleged witnesses did indeed describe multiple explosions
- not according to the photographs
- you are assuming you can trust the available videos
- so what? The initial report was a truck bomb, and the punchout hole looks like a wall breaching kit.
- Dozens of eyewitnesses can lie, and dozens more couldn't find any evidence of a plane. All it would take is to release all the security footage to quiet this issue down, now why don't they release that? Any assumptions there?



Much of this info is known by Truthers, but they continue to spread misinformation.

Much of it is hogwash, but you repeat it as if it was fact. Assumumptions?



This thread contains some of that misinformation. Ask why would Truthers continue to lie, why? It's to protect their world-view and it allows them to maintain their faith.


Ironic isn't it, that we're not called "911 liars".

Here's what Goebbels thought about the truth and it's relationship to the State:


"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State." -- Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels


www.questionwar.com...


edit on 20-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



I didn't say thousands eye witnesses lot loved ones, but it's not too hard to imagine that many of the people at ground zero on 9/11 knew people in the buildings... and hey guess what I did did know one of the people on the planes... so.. what was that advice you gave me about assuming things??


If you believe evidence has lead you here than you like so many truthers confuse a mass of speculation, paranoid suspicion and earnest, but factually inaccurate pseudo-science for evidence.

I have stated several things in the post which you chose not to respond to, for whatever reason, and those are issues which any investigator would need to explain, and things which make a lot of the so-called "evidence"... well... meaningless...

And why would the OP and so many other Truthers continue to lie about this stuff?? Any guess?

And btw, I have provided a list of facts...

here they are again:

- There's no such thing as "top down demolitions"

your response: - as far as you know

It's not about me "knowing," it's about the thousands of folks who casually claim something that DOES NOT look like any known demo is "obviously" a demo as it "looks exactly like a demo". If you think it's a demo it's up to your side to prove this phantom "top down demo" is not only possible" but has happened before... claiming some silly theory, "top down demos" is real, because no one can disprove it is patently dishonest.

- No witnesses saw timed explosions

your response: - Many alleged witnesses did indeed describe multiple explosions

If you think multiple explosions is what a demo looks like, that "multiple explosions" is the same thing as hundreds of precision explosions, visible and usdible to anyone near by, then you have NO IDEA what a demo looks like.

Here's a great vid of a VERY typical demo:



Find a SINGLE witness who describes anything remotely like that. You can't. Guaranteed.

- Fire in Bldg 7 went un-fought for hours, and all the firemen on the scene expected it to collapse

your response: - not according to the photographs

That's not true... either you're ignorant or lying???

Go here: www.debunking911.com...

There's footage of the ENTIRE building on fire, top to bottom, and photos.

- None of the building ACTUALLY looked like demos

your response: - you are assuming you can trust the available videos

Unless you can give me a reason to distrust dozens of videos from different angels by dozens of people, and hundreds of witnesses, then yes, I will trust the EVIDENCE.

- The Pentagon didn't have a missile defence system
your response - so what? The initial report was a truck bomb, and the punchout hole looks like a wall breaching kit.

The OP claimed, like many Truthers, that it did. That kind of lie typifies the movement, and honestly, I'll trust the dozens of witnesses who SAW a plane hit, over you looking at a picture and assuming that their all lying.

- Dozens of eye-witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon; their testimony is readily available, many of them weren't government employees (here's some of that: 911research.wtc7.net...)

your repose - Dozens of eyewitnesses can lie, and dozens more couldn't find any evidence of a plane. All it would take is to release all the security footage to quiet this issue down, now why don't they release that? Any assumptions there?

And therein lies the rub. To justify your faith in something with no evidence you invent a non-existent conspiracy of hundreds, if not thousands of people; all of this done to justify a belief...

Justifying a belief is NOT following evidence.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 



why are you not referring to my post about your post?

i proved all but one of your facts was false....
edit on 20-8-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

.

Some basic facts:

- There's no such thing as "top down demolitions"
- No witnesses saw timed explosions
- Fire in Bldg 7 went un-fought for hours, and all the firemen on the scene expected it to collapse
- None of the building ACTUALLY looked like demos
- The Pentagon didn't have a missile defence system
- Dozens of eye-witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon; their testimony is readily available, many of them weren't government employees (here's some of that: 911research.wtc7.net...)


Much of this info is known by Truthers, but they continue to spread misinformation. This thread contains some of that misinformation. Ask why would Truthers continue to lie, why? It's to protect their world-view and it allows them to maintain their faith.


your fact #1 you say no such thing as top down demolition, here is a video of one



your fact #2 no witnesses to the timed explosions, these witnesses beg to differ, there is more, visit this site to see the rest 911review.com...




Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22] ... and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28] The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.

Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6] We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.

Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202] But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53] we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.



your fact #3 listen to the video below where the newsman said that no one expected it to fall and that there was triage set up all around it and he hoped that they were far enough from the building...the firemen didn't expect it to come down
your fact #4 i refer you to this video



your fact #5 doesn't matter

your fact #7 prove they didn't work for the government....



edit on 20-8-2011 by patternfinder because: coppied it to my notepad

edit on 20-8-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)



here is the post that you need to refer to....bet you can't debunk it....



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 





and hey guess what I did did know one of the people on the planes


heh...do tell...



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 





and hey guess what I did did know one of the people on the planes


heh...do tell...


ha ha, that's funny, so far I've talked to someone who says that he was there, only he was in his daughter's apartment building 14 blocks away from the towers, and he didn't know it happened till it was showing on cnn, also we've heard from a guy who says he knew network IT guys that worked in the wtc7 and that they had access to the wires in the closets so there could be no way of wiring the building without them knowing, now I'm hearing someone actually claim that they knew someone in the planes that's too funny....



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


You go!

It does tick all the boxes, doesn't it...all the answers fall into place, and they apply to almost every thing else too, not just 911.

It's no wonder they consider us cattle, really...I mean if I was on the team of the oppressors, I'd probably think this was amusing as hell to see people chasing their tails for 10 years, and still denying what's right before their eyes.

This is how strong the indoctrination is.

Of course this is wny no one can mention video fakery or no planes without withering derision, not because it's crazy, but because it's true.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


My wife worked for Akamai, directly for Daniel Lewin. We lived in Boston for 10 years.

So...



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


And she flies on cartoon planes?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join