A question for believers or 'OSers'...., page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 17 times

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 01:20 PM by sir_slide

reply to post by GenRadek

Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Bernackey, Condeleeza douche bag and anyone else they can recruit. For real. Sorry but you asked. Those are the kinds of individuals who would be totally down for something insidious!

Back on topic though, how do you feel about the other points raised in the OP? I feel that if they had prior knowledge then they are partly responsible, no getting off the hook here. Either you knew about it or you didn't.

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 01:35 PM by GenRadek

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by GenRadek

I don't see how you can be so middle ground? Either they were complicit or not?

What do you think about the points raised? Please address them as I'm very interested in your opinion!

Most of your points raised have been discussed ad nauseum for the past 7+ years here on ATS. Its really getting tiring to continue to repost over and over the same answers because certain people just like to ignore them because it does not fit their preconceived notions. No offense to you of course, I am just saying from experience.

My personal belief is that yes we were attacked in the way the events progressed on 9/11. Terrorists from AQ hijacked and crashed four airliners in order to punish the Infidels of the West, by striking their symbolic objects of power and fortune. There are people in the world that despise Americans, despise anything Western, as it goes against their zealous beliefs and believe that it poses a threat to their old religious practices. Also, they hate foreigners that occupy their soil, support Israel, and see them all as threats to their countries and way of life. Some do not wish to break their thousand year old traditions and join the new age, but we can go on in a different thread as to way Radical Islamists hate us westerners. Back to the point. Their strength is their fanatical adherence to radicalized teachings. This is a result of their cultural background. So, when some Mullah asks for volunteers to strap bombs to themselves and blow up women and children in a rival's religious mosque (ie shiite vs sunni or vice versa) and tells them its for the glory and grace of Allah, people will do it. Just like how the Japanese got volunteers for the kamikazie. Of course, some did not join either.

Anyways, after the impacts, the resulting combination of impact damage, fires raging out of control, and time, the Tower's structural integrity was compromised and they collapsed. WTC7 was allowed to burn of 7 hours without a drop of water. Also, key, are the unorthodox designs of all three buildings, which all contributed in how t hey failed. Yes, fire and unprotected steel structures are a bad mix. Read up in firefighting manuals and structural fire safety. (Hint: ever wonder why steel needs a healthy dose of fireproofing? Look at what happened to the McCormick Place fire and how the steel supported roof failed within 20 minutes).

The Pentagon was struck by a plane. An American Airlines 757 that was hijacked. The moves done by the hijacker were not impossible. Landing a plane safely is 100x harder than slamming into a building with walls 925ft wide. His inexperience showed in his shaky flight path. But once in the air, it is not hard to find your target and then dive on it. The aircraft roared over one of the busiest freeway interchanges in the DC area, with thousands of vehicles in morning rush hour traffic. To think that someone would try to fake a plane crash in front of potentially hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses, and get away with it, is laughable and I'd say, insane. Most who think that have probably never set foot anywhere near DC or Arlington. I have.

Now what do I believe is the real conspiracy? How about for starters the A*holes that dropped the ball? The intel failures. The ignored or overlooked warnings? Interagency red-tape bureaucracy? Incompetent, lazy people who are suppose to be defending us, asleep at the switch? How about pretentious bosses? Stupid people not realizing a threat is upon us? Whose bright idea was it to wind down our air defense fighters from 5800 to 20 after the Cold War? Who wasnt paying attention at the security briefings, because they have been lulled into a false sense of security? You want to investigate 9/11? Start there. Dont go looking for magical thermites, fake planes, and silent but powerful explosives, and thousands of paid off potential whistleblowers that had a hand in committing the worst case of treason since Benedict Arnold.

edit on 8/14/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 01:36 PM by GenRadek

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by GenRadek

Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Bernackey, Condeleeza douche bag and anyone else they can recruit. For real. Sorry but you asked. Those are the kinds of individuals who would be totally down for something insidious!

Ah but where is your proof?

I can say that you yourself had a hand in doing that too. And I base this all on.................. my imagination!

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 02:02 PM by vipertech0596

reply to post by kaya82

I asked you a question. Who do you want to hold responsible? Because in reality if you want to truly hold everyone (and the RIGHT ones) who bear some responsibility for the lapses/failures/shortcomings that led to what happened on 9/11, you are going to have a list that numbers in the thousands that stretches back almost forty years.......and you will only be satisfying your own bloodlust. Because none of those people did anything malicious in nature, they were doing what they thought was the right thing at the.time

Am I happy about it? No. But I also realize that a massive witchhunt is going to do anything to fix the problems and make my country safer. Hell, here it is ten years later and the politicians are talking about slashing the Defense budget.....and one of the items on the block......the round the clock alert fighters that are supposed to intercept hostile aircraft. In other words, they want to return our capabilities to a pre-911 spot.......

edit on 14-8-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 02:06 PM by sir_slide

reply to post by GenRadek

Your post seems more anti Islamic than anything, although I really do appreciate your thoughts and have read and contemplated them.

Sure you feel that people want to attack us for our beliefs, totally dig that. But do you not feel it is more than that?

Let's get on topic and address the structural damage/fires etc that you assume collapsed the building. There was a fire in Spain I believe that raged in a skyscraper (far bigger) for almost two entire days without any kind of collapse.
whatreallyhappened.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.infowars.com...

the WTC was also designed to withstand numerous impacts from airliners. So this pancake theory which I assume that you are ascribing to seems very flawed in my opinion.

In relation to the Pentagon I really just don't see how you can argue that a 757 hit it. If it did you would see a) loads of body parts and bloody on lawn b) more airplane debris than a couple of bits of metal being personally removed by Rumsfeld and c) a far larger whole than was in the side of the building, you are aware the size of a Boeing 757 no?

I would also like to know how a guy who can barely handle a single engine Sesler can operate one of the largest aircraft available and also execute rather difficult maneuvers in risky air space? You may say that it would have been an easy maneuver, but do you speak from flight experience, my family have a background in the air force, my grandfather was pretty high up and had been in numerous wars as a fighter pilot and he said that it would be near impossible for a pilot of such incompetence to execute such a maneuver, not even taking into account the circumstances. Plus what I have seen in documentaries, it is just very unlikely that the individuals accused of the attacks flew the supposed plane into the pentagon.

I do agree that a ball was dropped, somewhere by someone. There were orders from the pentagon to back down on 9/11 in regards to some of the planes, anyone who has watched one documentary on this will be aware. What do you think of the things I have raised?

Cheers

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 02:18 PM by vipertech0596

reply to post by sir_slide

You need to find better sources. That Spanish building you are posting about....DID suffer a fire related collapse, it just didn't completely collapse....of course it didn't get by an airliner either. So far, you have filled this thread with boatload of falsehoods when it comes to 9/11.

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 02:31 PM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by sir_slide
Do you flat out believe the official story for 9/11? Do you believe there is no evidence to support any other theory?

First, you have to define exactly what you conspiracy theorists call the "OS" because there is no "OS" that explains how the towers or building 7 collapsed. There isn't even an "official story" on the attack being pulled off by Islamic fundamentalists, either- the entire 9/11 commission report was based completely upon interviewing scores of eyewitnesses, so if you're saying the 9/11 commission report is a lie, you're necessarily accusing the scores of eyewitnesses of lying.

Second, it's less the case that my mind is closed to the possibility there's some conspiracy goign on and more the case you conspiracy theorisyts are basing your claims on 100% lies and manipulations being manufactured by those damned fool conspiracy websites. Cases in point:

A) The whole "Mohammed Atta was a cocaine addict" claim came from Mohammed Atta's girlfriend, which I found out from YOU CONSPIRACY THEORISTS that she never knew Mohammed Atta and she's making the whole thing up. Her claim that he was a drug abuser is therefore suspect.

B) The fact remains that hundreds of eyewitnesses in the vicinity specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, plus, the front lawn and the interior of the building were instantly filled with plane wreckage after the impact. There is just too much concrete evidence proving that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon to be overridden sinply by your puzzlement on how the impact left that kind of damage to the building, barticularly since we both know the typical professional experinece of the average conspiracy theorist in crash site forensics is zero.

C) There were no antiaircraft defenses around the Pentagon. They were only installed a year after the 9/11 attack and specifically becuase of the 9/11 attack. Your "30 km no-fly zone" claim is false- The Pentagon is false. The Pentagon is directly across the river from Washington DC which has a number of major military and civilian airports)

D) The claim that "there were only tiny fires in building 7 is false. Firefighters on the groud specifically reported the fires were burning out of control and were causing massive deformation in the structure.

E) The claim that "explosions were heard in the basement" is irrelevent. Every video of the collapse that exists shows the buildings began collapsing at the points of impacts of the planes, not at the basement.

...and all of this can be shown with a simple 30 second Google search. Here's the rub- it's blatantly obvious that the conspiracy theorists aren't basing their position on any serious review of the evidence. They're basing it upon an unrepentent ignorance of the evidence and they're getting all their information from those damned fool conspiracy websites. I'll be the first to admit there's more to the story behind the 9/11 attack than what the gov't is admitting, but that doesn't mean we need to mindlessly swallow the abject paranoia being passed around to sucker people into buying T-shirts, either.

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 02:38 PM by Cassius666

But please tell me Genradeck, what else those Americans wouldnt do? They surely wouldnt mail weaponsgrade Anthrax throughout the country, would they?

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 02:45 PM by esdad71

Who is responsible for 9/11? The CIA. They did not plan it, but they did not have key evidence that they could have used. There was also a large disparity over what could be shared and what could be legally obtained/transferred as information. Everyone in the government knew something was going to happen and this was evident long before Bush was in office.

1. Attack in 93 on WTC.
2. Attack on multiple embassies/bases around the globe.
3. USS Cole

Now, in 3 simple data points, we show premeditation for 9/11 or AQ wanted to harm the US. It was not as if these guys showed up in 2001 and no one knew who they were or what they were up to. Problem was sharing of information. It killed 3000 people that day. If certain information could have been reviewed or checked it may have been different. I am sure there would have been something else, such as one of the other attacks that were stopped years after. They would have succeeded if 9/11 would have failed. It is a catch 21. Also, hindsight is 20/20 say of course it is easy to examine now and say what should have been done.

It comes down to perception of what is presented and making a decision for yourself. I have a believe that 93 was shot down and also, 587, was covered up and was detonated just after takeoff. Look up the toll booth video. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but make the choice yourself.

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 02:49 PM by GenRadek

reply to post by Cassius666

Oh you mean the disgruntled and mentally unstable Bruce Edwards Ivins? I didnt realize he was acting under orders from the [insert favorite evil person/group here]. Or it could have been part of the original 9/11 terrorists plot with another yet-unamed assistant?

But hey, it is all speculation, assumptions, all based on........... well personal incredulity. However, if speculation and assumption are all you need to find guilt, that is up to you. That is not how one finds out the truth.

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 03:01 PM by Cassius666

What do you mean by "favourite group", its always the same, it aint me who cooked up Talibans alqaedas and whatnot. No not Irvin. Only in Utah or Ohio was that specific strain of Anthrax produced. Also who exactly said he did it? Ask yourself this. How likely is it, that 3 separate terrorist attacks conicide with the exact same exercise drill in every detail at the exact same time?

You have to be a true believer to not be a sceptic. But you say yourself that you DO believe there was a coverup, that not everything has been told. Do you have a hunch in what the information that has been withheld consists of in your opinion?

And no it is not just a hunch, not just increduilty. People out of the military, intelligence, politics community have come forward and flatout said 911 was an inside job and of high rank too, one former president among them. Peter Powers the head of a crisis managment center based in London came forward and said that on 7/7 were drills going on, which coincided in every detail with the actual attack, just like it happened on 911.

The people who work with hunches and guessimating are in the believers camp, not in the sceptics camp.

edit on 14-8-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 03:06 PM by kaya82

reply to post by vipertech0596

Dude ur a crackpot! My bloodlust? You know nothing about me zero. I dont have a bloodlust i just want justice and it hasnt been served. You osers constantly moan about truthers and conspiracys yet you come on these sites day after day arguing with ppl of your happy with whats happened which you clearly are then get on with your life why are you bothered what other ppl think.

Imo the true perps will continue to get away with this and only when they die and are answerable to god will they be punished. They will burn in hell hopefully

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 03:10 PM by sir_slide

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Hey man great response!

That is the kind of stuff I am talking about. Let me read over again and get back with some better thoughts, thankyou though

I guess what I am refering to as far as the OS goes is that groups of Al Queada muslim extremists hijacked some planes and flew them into numerous buildings withouth the knowledge, assistance or direction of the US government. I guess it also means that the WTC collapsed due to the pancake theory.

When it comes to the Pentagon one would expect to see a lot of body parts among the incredibly small amount of debris on the lawn. I would also like to know why Rumsfeld was personally picking it up. Also if a plane were to hit, you would expect to at least see some wings/engines etc as the main body of the plane would have plunged into the building, we did not see this. I see it to be far easier to bribe whoever said they saw the plane to alter their story, although that's another thing.

I don't see the explosions as irrelevant though, just because the floor in which the plane impacted was detonated first (hypothetically) doesn't mean that the ones in the basement do not mean anything, they deserve an explanation.

As far as the airports please read thread, we have covered that.

Is there anything solid as to the claim Atta's gf never knew him? I'd love a link

edit on 14-8-2011 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 03:10 PM by samkent

reply to post by sir_slide

the WTC was also designed to withstand numerous impacts from airliners. So this pancake theory which I assume that you are ascribing to seems very flawed in my opinion.

You are so misinformed it's not even remotely funny.

All of the points you are bring ing up have been discused soooo many times before. Did you just discover ATS?
You might do well to just scan back a few pages and simply read the threads. They are all the same things you bring up.

Every 6 weeks someone new comes here and starts the same topics all over again.

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 03:12 PM by kaya82

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by sir_slide

You need to find better sources. That Spanish building you are posting about....DID suffer a fire related collapse, it just didn't completely collapse....of course it didn't get by an airliner either. So far, you have filled this thread with boatload of falsehoods when it comes to 9/11.

Wtc7 wasnt hit by an airliner either sherlock.

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 03:15 PM by GenRadek

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by GenRadek

Your post seems more anti Islamic than anything, although I really do appreciate your thoughts and have read and contemplated them.

Personally, I have nothing against Islam. I have friends who are Islamic, worked with people who are Islamic. I do have an issue with people who pervert and twist religion into a weapon that destroys. It doesnt matter if it is radical Islam, radical Christians, or radical Jews. If you use religion as a weapon to subvert and control others, and punish those that do not believe, well, then to hell with them.

Sure you feel that people want to attack us for our beliefs, totally dig that. But do you not feel it is more than that?

Its happened around the world my friend. Look at India. Pakistan. Hell even in iraq, where you have idiot extremists Shiites blowing up Sunni Mosques, over what? Have you seen the difference between Sunni and Shiite? Why then are they willing to blow up themselves? Just like the IRA in new New Britain. Terrorists. As to why 9/11 happened, take your pick. US bases in Saudi Arabia. Israel existing. US Support of Israel. The punishment of Palestinians. Western culture.

Let's get on topic and address the structural damage/fires etc that you assume collapsed the building. There was a fire in Spain I believe that raged in a skyscraper (far bigger) for almost two entire days without any kind of collapse.
whatreallyhappened.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.infowars.com...

the WTC was also designed to withstand numerous impacts from airliners. So this pancake theory which I assume that you are ascribing to seems very flawed in my opinion.

Windsor Tower was saved only by its large steel-reinforced concrete core and large heavy concrete transfer floors. More can be found here:
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Notice that the steel only supported section collapsed and failed, from fire alone, within 2 hours of fire initiation. Follow the timeline. No planes hit it, no jet fuel spread the fires, and yet the steel structure in the fire failed. Again, go back to the McCormick Place Fire and see how very large heavy steel trusses supporting the roof collapsed within 20 minutes. Again, unprotected steel and fire = disaster.

In relation to the Pentagon I really just don't see how you can argue that a 757 hit it. If it did you would see a) loads of body parts and bloody on lawn b) more airplane debris than a couple of bits of metal being personally removed by Rumsfeld and c) a far larger whole than was in the side of the building, you are aware the size of a Boeing 757 no?

You just had a 757 impact a building at 350+mph. A high speed impact into a large building is not going to leave large pieces of recognizable debris. Also, majority of debris went into the building. What was happening inside that building? It was burning. Have you ever seen an airplane that caught fire on the runway?

So if a plane can burn up to nothing, what will happen if you smash up the aircraft, throw it into a burning building with jet fuel, and then have the building burn and later collapse onto the wreckage? Do you really expect to find large recognizable pieces? Not really. What was found were shards, shreds, and some material that was ejected by the blast/impact. This landed outside. The engines were recovered. Landing gear recovered. Even some mangled bodies. You are asking why can some pieces survive and some cant, in an event that is completely at the mercy of chaos. It is impossible to control and predict a chaotic event. Asking why some things survived while others didnt, is a poor judgement call.

I would also like to know how a guy who can barely handle a single engine Sesler can operate one of the largest aircraft available and also execute rather difficult maneuvers in risky air space? You may say that it would have been an easy maneuver, but do you speak from flight experience, my family have a background in the air force, my grandfather was pretty high up and had been in numerous wars as a fighter pilot and he said that it would be near impossible for a pilot of such incompetence to execute such a maneuver, not even taking into account the circumstances. Plus what I have seen in documentaries, it is just very unlikely that the individuals accused of the attacks flew the supposed plane into the pentagon.

What were the difficult maneuvers? Going in a large lazy loop and descending? Not that hard really. Ask any real pilot. The hardest part is take off and landing. So Hanji couldnt fly perfectly. apparently it was good enough to get a licence. Strange huh? so either he was grossly incompetent, or he was just good enough to get a license. Here is a fun fact: What do you call a doctor that finishes in the last of his class? Doctor! I hope you understand the joke. Hanji still got his licence. So what he couldnt land. he didnt need to. he just needed to fly and aim. Hell, if the Japanese could teach unskilled teens to fly a Zero, loaded with bombs, and crash it into a moving target ship, within a few days, it shouldnt take that much to be taught to make a few turns and descent. All that bunk you read about "fighter pilot" moves, is a bunch of BS meant to sensationalize it. In reality, he was just flying it, good enough, to find his target and crash. Let me ask you, which is easier, landing an airliner safely on a runway that is 100ft wide, or trying to impact a wall that is over 900ft wide? Notice, the hijacker was not interested in safety of the aircraft.

I do agree that a ball was dropped, somewhere by someone. There were orders from the pentagon to back down on 9/11 in regards to some of the planes, anyone who has watched one documentary on this will be aware. What do you think of the things I have raised?

Cheers

Eh, that is a bunch of malarkey, about planes being told to stand down. The "documentaries" are nothing more than slick deceiving piles of garbage that hold bases on facts.

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 03:17 PM by vipertech0596

reply to post by kaya82

No, it just had a 20 story hole cut into it by the collapse of WTC1......

Sherlock

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 03:19 PM by spoor

Originally posted by sir_slide
Yeah I definitely think it's interesting about the missing trillions that were apparently forgotten about the day after 9/11

That is just once again a truther lie. The "missing" trillions was mentioned a long time before 9/11, and has also been explained here many times before.
www.911myths.com...

All the falsehoods and truther lies you are bringing up have been shown to be rubbish many many times here before - try using the search function here.

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 03:21 PM by vipertech0596

reply to post by kaya82

You don't even know how, and to whom, you want justice served. You just want someone held responsible.......someone OTHER than the terrorists that were responsible. You don't care if they are guilty of a crime or not.

reply posted on 14-8-2011 @ 03:22 PM by Yankee451

reply to post by GenRadek

AQ, the "intel failures", da plane, da plane.

Based on the punishments meted out, there were no intel failures.