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: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


Speak for yourself buddy.

"Sept 11th 2001 The pentagon DID NOT have an anti air battery. 30km no fly zone?? Are you completely ignorant of what you speak? "- this was covered on page 2 or something, please read thread before making comments.

"Do you know Regan national is right next to the pentagon? Do you know that incoming flights fly within a few hundred yards of the pentagon?

This is GREAT!! This is a perfect example of a truther, that thinks he has all the answers, yet knows nothing! "- this was also covered. If you are going to comment, PLEASE READ THE THREAD. I asked questions, you get snippy and rude, not cool mate.



Again, odd for the SOD to be out there, shouldn't he have been in a briefing or something?



Also, a 757 would have left a far bigger whole, there aren't even any marks outside of the actual whole, it's ridiculous. Do you believe that a 757 made this whole?/??
edit on 15-8-2011 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


Does this dissolve the fact that you stated them as facts?? You did not ask questions, you stated those points as facts. Am I to believe that you now know that your points were incorrect? Have you asked yourself yet "what else do I have wrong about my 9/11 theory" ... Or "Do I really know anything about 9/11?"

This thread is a perfect example of how people will take opinions and assumptions, turning them into facts.. Its sad.

And no, I didn't read page 2... I responded to the OP, when I had read as much as I could stomach... If an OS'er stated such blatant inaccuracies, he would be tarred and feathered instantly.



Building 7. How can a building that was not hit by any plane, apparently had no explosives in it and only some tiny fires on a couple of floors collapse demolition style, in free fall? People may say that it was damaged when the towers fell. Why didn't other buildings collapse like that then?


Should I bring facts and evidence to prove the above to be completely false? Or has someone already corrected your mistake?
edit on 8/15/2011 by ShaunHatfield because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/15/2011 by ShaunHatfield because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


I actually don't have a theory, I'm trying to formulate a solid one. Your rudeness is making it very difficult here.

Oh please do, I am absolutely all ears. Cheers dude



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


Look. I know the position you are in.. You did not ask questions to formulate a theory. You asked a few questions, also laying out the facts you did know.

My rudeness? Because I am calling a spade a spade? Honesty? I bet you wish you could edit more than 4 hours after post. But, lets be clear.. You did not ask about the points I addressed, you stated them as facts... Sorry I hadn't seen your "about face" since I couldn't let the OP "facts" slide.

Building 7 had extensive damage including "The whole bottom right corner was gone" The fires in building 7 were out of control. Sure other buildings were hit, but they were small, and didn't have 40 stories to support.




"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


I made some points, and asked people who believe the OS to adress them, in order for me to formulate a more solid opinion.

Come on man your posts are condescending, patronizing and rude. I don't mean to call you out, and I rarely post things that I regret so the 4 hour window is of no concern to me. I don't want to argue with you man, I would just like to be treated with the same respect I feel I've been giving other people.

I'm wondering about WTC7, how can a building collapse in free fall like that? I have seen footage and it seems quite obviously a demolition. Buildings dont fall like that unless there are explosives involved.

Cheers, and let's not argue but debate respectfully. Thank you Shaun

Oh and please address my question in regards to the whole in the building.
edit on 15-8-2011 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


Ok, I just get used to truthers coming in, spouting off facts, that don't even resemble facts. My apologies, I am not used to a realistic and critical thinking truther.

When you say "The hole in the building" do you mean the pentagon?

Ok I see you edited your post... That picture you have there IS NOT from the pentagon. It may be from the pentagon but, it has been doctored extensively. There was much more damage than that picture shows...

The walls arent even burnt... That is an obvious photoshop job.

As to the SOD being out on the lawn.... What kind of man do you think climbs the ranks in the military to make SOD?? Do you think he would be the type of man to run to the metro and proceed home, to hide in his closet?

I do not find it strange at all the the SOD would be outside the building after a crash like this.. NOT cleaning up debris, but caring after then wounded.. I know this goes against the truther stance that all these men want us dead, but facts are facts.





edit on 8/15/2011 by ShaunHatfield because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/15/2011 by ShaunHatfield because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


Thanks for that. Just really don't think its fair to lump me in the 'blind truther' category.

Yeah I meant the hole in the pentagon, it seems so minuscule when compared to a 757. How could that possibly happen?

Cheers mate



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I am not an "OS believer", as I don't even know what that is. I am a believer in the most rational, well supported explanation. Which turns out to be planes hijacked by terrorists crashing into buildings, causing them to collapse. This explanation does not require the introduction of all kind of assumptions we have no evidence of. The basic premise of most Truthers is that planes crashing into building can not make them collapse. To me that possibility sounds completely reasonable, and I have no problems understanding the explanations given by engineers and experts.

Whether there was any foreknowledge is a different question. Possibly, but the possibility is always there, it is evidence that makes the difference. Except for circumstantial evidence I have never seen anything compelling, so I have no reason to believe there was foreknowledge.

And lastly, were there any cover-ups to hide incompetence and neglect? No doubt, that happens constantly, everywhere. Its just everyday bussiness.

An often heard argument from truthers is that there isn't a single piece of evidence that proves a conspiracy, but it is all those small pieces together that add up. I think that when you search for this type of evidence, you will always find it, and plenty of it. It is not the right way to form an opinion. You will also have to weight the evidence that adds up for it being hijackers. And for that we do have some very convincing evidence. You can discard this evidence as fake, but you have to complicit more and more people with each piece of evidence you discard.

So to get to your points, as pointed out by others, they are either false, unsubstantiated or they don't prove anything. For example, the small hole in the pentagon, did you look that up in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics in the section hole sizes left by planes when they crash into buildings? It seems to me nobody can really know this kind of stuff until it happens. When you let 100 scientists make such a prediction, all can turn out to be wrong.
edit on 15-8-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   



A note about this picture, since you two seem to be confused:

That IS indeed a legitimate photo of damage to the Pentagon, but it is NOT the large gaping hole left in the outer facade. This is what's known as the "exit hole", which I believe was punched through the 4th ring? (someone correct me here). The theory goes that the plane was traveling at such a high velocity when it impacted the outermost ring, the entire plane and it's fuel became more like a liquid than a solid, moving through the structure as a sort of fireball that eventually ended up punching the small hole that you see there (and leaving the scorch marks you see).

edit on 15-8-2011 by Charizard because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Charizard
 


So would that have actually been the main body of the plane that tunneled through the layers upon impact? I would imagine that the wings would detach, same with the engines and that the main shaft of the plane wold continue forward making that hole? Is that the theory? I'm also confused as to why in the photos we see no blood whatsoever, if it was a plane full of people you would find blood/body parts/traces of people. I want to know why this is not the case.......

Thanks again man!



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


And some of Mr. DeMartini's last recorded words were him calling down from near the impact site in the North Tower, to tell his office that he wanted a structural engineer on site because he felt that the North Tower was on danger of at least a partial collapse. Not long after he made that call, he was killed in the collapse.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


Why do you think you are entitled to see the photos of body parts? There are reasons why the photos that were released are taken from a relative distance.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I've seen enough body parts in my time thank you. I am not so interested in seeing them, but knowing of their existence, if there is no trace of anyone being on the plane then something is up. Do you know what I mean?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


WTC 7's collapse started long before its "finale" that we saw that evening. It wasn't nearly as sudden as you think



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 




Apparently so.




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


So, if you can't see them, they don't exist? You should go through the exhibits of the Moussari trial. There was a chart showing whose remains were found, and where they were found.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


Ah yes, the media version of the telephone game as shown by the BBC. Do you have a point to go with the videos?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I was responding to your comment dude.

The videos should also be pretty self explanatory.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by kaya82
 


Great!! Who do you want to hold responsible? The politicians who voted to kill funding for the missile batteries that we had around major cities in the 50s and 60s ? Maybe President George Bush (41) for cutting our Contintental Air Defenses after the Cold War, when the world was finally going to be at peace? Or the Senators and Congressmen who agreed with him and used that money for social programs? Possibly Bill Clinton for not stopping the drawdown or not killing Osama when he had the chance in the late 90s? Or do you just want to blame the generals who had to operate under the restrictions imposed on them by the politicians and also operated under the same stupid idea that we were invincible on our home turf?

Bush used money for social programs? Now that was a sad joke...





Welcome back to 1941 and the post-Pearl Harbor witchhunt......



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 





I'm also confused as to why in the photos we see no blood whatsoever, if it was a plane full of people you would find blood/body parts/traces of people. I want to know why this is not the case.......


Blood boils away in a fire. If the fire crews get there quick enough their fire hoses wash away any remaining.

You should know this.




top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join