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.
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.
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'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.
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.
What thousands of people saw, with their own eyes, is what happened.
Get all the facts straight...
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.
.
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.
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.
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
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.
- 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.
"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
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)
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 notepadedit on 20-8-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)
and hey guess what I did did know one of the people on the planes
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...