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: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


If you are only asking questions then you should be happy you got the right answer.




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_slide
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
this is the problem with the debunkers or osers they lump everyone and anyone into this TRUTHER BASKET even though they know nothing at all about the poster or what their veiws are.

you cant have a proper debate with out insults

i must admitt am not perfect and have done so myself out of frustration

what i really dont understand is why they feel the need to persistantly participate on a conspiracy forum regarding 9/11 when they have no interest other than to distract and muddy the waters.

they are happy with the explanation weve been given so why come on here? i dont get it

keep up your search for the truth because i will always frequent these sites in order to keep up to date with whats happening



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Juanxlink
 


I'm guessing your addition was the sad joke part. Poor attempt at a political statement perhaps. No matter. The facts show that Bush did indeed spend more money on social programs.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
double post removed
edit on 15-8-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 





Too hasty with my response. The problem I have with this holographic theory is that all you need to do is watch any single one of the hundreds of available videos from the day to realize that this theory seems a little silly.


Yeah, and still too hasty. Who the hell mentioned holograms?

I named several examples of people who have been exposed as peddling fraudulent images, yet you brush it off as if you've actually done the hard work and studied them all. Clearly you're only looking for information that reiiforces your preexisting notions.




While I did say there was 'no video fakery' which is obviously incorrect, I don't see how people can put stock into any faked video, holographic plane or not and by putting theories such as this forward really detract from the overall argument here.


On one hand you say "video fakery" occured, and then you say you don't see how people can put stock in it. If it occurred (IT DID!), why not put stock in it, and why keep bringing up holograms?

Why would any single video or photo be fraudulent?




While I said there was no video fakery, I guess what I meant is there is no video fakery worth mentioning.


So sayeth you, yet you see no problem with some fakery, and lump it all in with Holograms. Smacks of disingenuousness.




I am sorry for such a dismissive response, do you understand where I am coming from here?


I understand fully.
edit on 15-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Is there any debunker willing to explain how 116ton 767 jet holding 22,000 gallons of jet fuel can pulverize 500,000 tons of concrete(10,000psi) and mild steel.????


Cause the US government has not and cannot. They expect people like the many debunkers(WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION) to just drink the koolaid with ease.



If planes were such a hindrance to steel man made structures ,,,then the Japanese should have won the Pacific during world war 2. Not one Kamikaze attack sunk a US carrier(or auxiliary ships) nor derailed the US carrier primary mission do to a kamikaze attack. And kamikaze planes had bombs too and our carriers kept on going. (Look it up)


Its really simple aluminum+jet fuel cannot trump mild steel+concrete(10,000psi). Then Include the size difference and the 911 storyline is even more ridiculous.


I bet no one can debunk that.

And don't worry debunkers we truthers know deep inside nothing will come out of all this. We truthers enjoy arguing with you and making you all look like programmed idiots.


Enjoy the koolaid.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
You are wrong about the Pentagon. It was an aircraft. There is plenty of evidence to 100% prove this is you look in the right place, Some people will blindly still believe the unbelievable nonsense version no matter how much evidence to the contrary there is.

What most people either don't know or choose to overlook is that the pentagon was designed to be an archive. Not it's current use. The walls were made much thicker and stronger than any other normal building at it's time of construction. If you look into this you'll find I'm right and it's hardly surprising the 757 didn't make much of a dent. The irony of this is that the hijackers obviously didn't know this about the Pentagon either. Logic dictates they would have picked a different target if they had known how fortified this structure really is.

As for that goon swaying into the WTC asking for blueprints, I can completely believe that, these people were IDIOTS. It completely adds up if you think about it. Yes snorting coke off of hookers is not very religious, but neither is flying aircraft into buildings. These people were world-class assholes. The attack was masterminded by twits. This is maybe why so many folk try to find some kind of conspiracy to explain it.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


Another case of a truther spouting off information that is untrue at best, an intentional lie at face value.


SHIPS SUNK BY KAMIKAZE'S
Year
Date Ship
1944 Oct. 25 St. Lo (CVE-63) (escort carrier) [8]
Nov. 1 Abner Read (DD-526) (destroyer)
Nov. 27 SC-744 (submarine chaser)
Dec. 5 LSM-20 (landing ship, medium)
Dec. 7 Mahan (DD-364) (destroyer)
Dec. 7 LSM-318 (landing ship, medium)
Dec. 7 Ward (APD-16) (high-speed transport)
Dec. 10 William S. Ladd (Liberty cargo ship)
Dec. 10 PT-323 (motor torpedo boat)
Dec. 11 Reid (DD-369) (destroyer)
Dec. 15 LST-472 (landing ship, tank)
Dec. 15 LST-738 (landing ship, tank)
Dec. 18 PT-300 (motor torpedo boat)
Dec. 21 LST-460 (landing ship, tank)
Dec. 21 LST-749 (landing ship, tank)
Dec. 28 John Burke (Liberty cargo ship)
Dec. 30 Porcupine (IX-126) (auxiliary tanker)
1945 Jan. 4 Ommaney Bay (CVE-79) (escort carrier)
Jan. 5 Lewis L. Dyche (Liberty cargo ship)
Jan. 6 Long (DMS-12) (high-speed minesweeper)
Feb. 21 Bismark Sea (CVE-21) (escort carrier)
Apr. 6 Bush (DD-529) (destroyer)
Apr. 6 Colhoun (DD-801) (destroyer)
Apr. 6 Emmons (DMS-22) (high-speed minesweeper)
Apr. 6 Hobbs Victory (cargo ship)
Apr. 6 Logan Victory (cargo ship)
Apr. 7 LST-447 (landing ship, tank) [9]
Apr. 12 Mannert L. Abele (DD-733) (destroyer)
Apr. 12 LCS(L)(3)-33 (landing craft, support (large) (Mk. III)) [10]
Apr. 16 Pringle (DD-477) (destroyer)
Apr. 22 Swallow (AM-65) (minesweeper)
Apr. 22 LCS(L)(3)-15 (landing craft, support (large) (Mk. III))
Apr. 27 Canada Victory (cargo ship)
May 3 Little (DD-803) (destroyer)
May 3 LSM(R)-195 (landing ship, medium (rocket))
May 4 Morrison (DD-560) (destroyer)
May 4 Luce (DD-522) (destroyer)
May 4 LSM(R)-190 (landing ship, medium (rocket))
May 4 LSM(R)-194 (landing ship, medium (rocket))
May 25 Bates (APD-47) (high-speed transport)
May 25 LSM-135 (landing ship, medium)
May 28 Drexler (DD-741) (destroyer)
June 10 William D. Porter (DD-579) (destroyer)
June 16 Twiggs (DD-591) (destroyer)
June 21 LSM-59 (landing ship, medium)
June 21 Barry (APD-29) (high-speed transport) [11]
July 29 Callaghan (DD-792) (destroyer) [12]

Tell the crew of all of these ships, that the Kamikaze that sank them, was an imagination....

Being ignorant of the facts, seems to be the perfect time to speak up.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by angus1745
 


Who had the means, motive and opportunity?

Do you even know the motive?



To complete the scam, 240 billion dollars in securities were created, likely fraudulently, with a ten year maturity date. These “Brady Bonds” were created on September 12, 1991 and certificates for these securities were stored in the vault in the basement of One World Trade Center. Ten years minus one day equals September 11, 2001.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


After six years of research, this report presents corroborating evidence which supports their claims, and proposes a new rationale for the September 11th attacks. In doing so, many of the anomalies – or inconvenient facts surrounding this event - take on a meaning that is consistent with the claims of Eastman et al. The hypothesis of this report is: the attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which ‘unknown’ western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation. In doing so, the attacks were justified under the cardinal rule of intelligence: “protect your resources” and consistent with a modus operandi of sacrificing lives for a greater cause. The case for detailed targeting of the attacks begins with analysis of the attack on the Pentagon. After one concludes that the targeting of the ONI office in the Pentagon was not random – and that information is presented later. – one then must ask: is it possible that the planes that hit the World Trade Center, and the bombs reported by various witnesses to have been set off inside the buildings 1, 6 and 7 and the basement of the Towers, were deliberately located to support the execution of a crime of mind-boggling proportions? In considering that question, a pattern emerges. For the crimes alleged by Eastman, Flocco, Durham and Schwarz to be successful, the vault in the basement of the World Trade Center, and its contents - less than a billion in gold, but hundreds of billions of dollars of government securities - had to be destroyed. A critical mass of brokers from the major government security brokerages in the Twin Towers had to be eliminated to create chaos in the government securities market. A situation needed to be created wherein $240 billion dollars of covert securities could be electronically “cleared” without anyone asking questions- which happened when the Federal Reserve declared an emergency and invoked its“ emergency powers.” that very afternoon.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by dilly1
 


Another case of a truther spouting off information that is untrue at best, an intentional lie at face value.


SHIPS SUNK BY KAMIKAZE'S
Year
Date Ship
1944 Oct. 25 St. Lo (CVE-63) (escort carrier) [8]
Nov. 1 Abner Read (DD-526) (destroyer)
Nov. 27 SC-744 (submarine chaser)
Dec. 5 LSM-20 (landing ship, medium)
Dec. 7 Mahan (DD-364) (destroyer)
Dec. 7 LSM-318 (landing ship, medium)
Dec. 7 Ward (APD-16) (high-speed transport)
Dec. 10 William S. Ladd (Liberty cargo ship)
Dec. 10 PT-323 (motor torpedo boat)
Dec. 11 Reid (DD-369) (destroyer)
Dec. 15 LST-472 (landing ship, tank)
Dec. 15 LST-738 (landing ship, tank)
Dec. 18 PT-300 (motor torpedo boat)
Dec. 21 LST-460 (landing ship, tank)
Dec. 21 LST-749 (landing ship, tank)
Dec. 28 John Burke (Liberty cargo ship)
Dec. 30 Porcupine (IX-126) (auxiliary tanker)
1945 Jan. 4 Ommaney Bay (CVE-79) (escort carrier)
Jan. 5 Lewis L. Dyche (Liberty cargo ship)
Jan. 6 Long (DMS-12) (high-speed minesweeper)
Feb. 21 Bismark Sea (CVE-21) (escort carrier)
Apr. 6 Bush (DD-529) (destroyer)
Apr. 6 Colhoun (DD-801) (destroyer)
Apr. 6 Emmons (DMS-22) (high-speed minesweeper)
Apr. 6 Hobbs Victory (cargo ship)
Apr. 6 Logan Victory (cargo ship)
Apr. 7 LST-447 (landing ship, tank) [9]
Apr. 12 Mannert L. Abele (DD-733) (destroyer)
Apr. 12 LCS(L)(3)-33 (landing craft, support (large) (Mk. III)) [10]
Apr. 16 Pringle (DD-477) (destroyer)
Apr. 22 Swallow (AM-65) (minesweeper)
Apr. 22 LCS(L)(3)-15 (landing craft, support (large) (Mk. III))
Apr. 27 Canada Victory (cargo ship)
May 3 Little (DD-803) (destroyer)
May 3 LSM(R)-195 (landing ship, medium (rocket))
May 4 Morrison (DD-560) (destroyer)
May 4 Luce (DD-522) (destroyer)
May 4 LSM(R)-190 (landing ship, medium (rocket))
May 4 LSM(R)-194 (landing ship, medium (rocket))
May 25 Bates (APD-47) (high-speed transport)
May 25 LSM-135 (landing ship, medium)
May 28 Drexler (DD-741) (destroyer)
June 10 William D. Porter (DD-579) (destroyer)
June 16 Twiggs (DD-591) (destroyer)
June 21 LSM-59 (landing ship, medium)
June 21 Barry (APD-29) (high-speed transport) [11]
July 29 Callaghan (DD-792) (destroyer) [12]

Tell the crew of all of these ships, that the Kamikaze that sank them, was an imagination....

Being ignorant of the facts, seems to be the perfect time to speak up.





GIVE ME THE SITE



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


Yes we have no bananas, today.

How many of those fuel and ammunition laden vessels had hulls shaped like this?



You're not saying the WTC was packed with fuel and explosives are you?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by angus1745
 


You call the attackers twits and idiots. Isn't it a little disturbing that idiots pulled off an attack like this hitting 75% of their targets? Idiots strap a bomb to themselves and run into a crowded area (takes no skill), I dont believe idiots could pull of an attack of this magnitude, there had to be help somewhere.......

And to the OP, nice post. It is frustrating arguing with debunkers/OSers becasue they refuse to look at any of the evidence that's presented to them. The stubborness of them is unreal.

Former BYU Physics Professor Steven Jones was sent concrete by a lady from NY to be tested, after testing the concrete he found traces of nano-thermite which he believes would of been used to bring down the towers. Or how about the fact that there were temperatures of over 2000 degrees found under the rubble piles months after the attacks. When asked a fireman stated that it was like a foundry in there (molten metal)....Jet fuel cant melt steel, it can weaken it, but it cant melt it, but what can? Thermite/thermate (military grade).....



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 





If planes were such a hindrance to steel man made structures ,,,then the Japanese should have won the Pacific during world war 2. Not one Kamikaze attack sunk a US carrier(or auxiliary ships) nor derailed the US carrier primary mission do to a kamikaze attack. And kamikaze planes had bombs too and our carriers kept on going. (Look it up)


Oh really?

www.history.navy.mil...

USS Bismarck Sea (CVE-95) sunk by Kamikaze aircraft off Iwo Jima, Volcano Islands, 21 February 1945.

USS Ommaney Bay (CVE-79) sunk by Kamikaze attack south of Mindoro, Philippine Islands, 4 January 1945.

USS Abner Read (DD-526) sunk by Kamikaze attack in Leyte Gulf, Philippine Islands, 1 November 1944

I could go on.....

Its a prime reason why most of us refuse to respond to your spamming posts about concrete and jet fuel. You ignore the truth.
.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ShaunHatfield
 


Like I said not one USS carrier sank do to a kamikaze attack.

You decide to twist my point with small ships like ,landing ships,auxiliary tankers,cargo ships,mine sweeper sub chasers all small ships. And most of them had internal failure do to the fire from the explosion of the jap plane or its bomb.


Even the escort carrier own bombs exploding were the cause of the carrier sinking. Not the impact of the plane .


Which proves my point all these ships your listed failed because they were small ships or there own torpedoes/bombs went off causing internal failure. WTC "supposedly" had no internal structure failure and the whole thing just collapsed do to 22,000 gallons of fuel burning on the upper floors????. mmmmm?? total bs


Your stupidity just proved my point ,thank you.


Gotcha



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 





Jet fuel cant melt steel, it can weaken it, but it cant melt it,


Oh really?

www.arl.psu.edu...(7_11_07)_MOD1.pdf

Upwards of 1500 degrees Celsius (2732 degrees Farenheit) in the combustion chamber. Carbon steel will melt between 2600 to 2800.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


You might want to reread the list.....and your own post....especially about auxillary ships.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
OK let me give it a shot.IF there were any US government personel involved,they would have to be something like a cult that had infiltrated the US government.The rank and file US government employees are as decent as the general public from where they are drawn.Ted Gunderson (GOD rest his soul) said this.He believed that a satanic cult had infiltrated the government.My father (GOD rest his soul) was in the FBI when I was born,and he was an infiltration and torture specialist.Everyone who does this directly for the government is aware of the other COINTELPRO-style operatives,and they all have their areas of "expertise".In his day,he infiltrated white supremacists,and oddly enough,satanic cults and covens.The criterea for getting on the governments defecant list is 1)a clear and present danger to "public order" 2) any attempt to establish a power base in direct conflict with US government policy.Anyone who thinks torture is new in America is mistaken,we have been doing it since the days of George Washington.Then we come to the question of turf.The FBI does the spying inside the US,and the CIA and other agencies do spying everywhere else.Before 911,they were not allowed to share info,now they can.This is not good AT ALL,but I see it as an admission of defeat,as opposed to a pre-arranged thing.A cult would have a core of true believers who would give their all to destroying the country.The US government leaks like a sieve,they cannot keep a secret ,no matter how much they want to.Not to mention that this is TREASON,and carries the death penalty.A cult would have the advantage of keeping secrets about the true nature of their "thing",not too unlike the mob.Also,many conspiracies are hatched by our enemies,and God knows we have many,some deserved,and others not so.Here is a list of possible groups who could pull it off.
1)Fourth reich types (project paperclip,Europeans with nazi sympathies,etc.)
2)satanists
3)China (why not?)
4)Russia(""")
5)a combo of all of the above with European banksters
6)the stockholders of the federal reserve
All that being said,I am still open to the possibilty that I have this all wrong,the important question I have for you is are you?Reality does not care what I, you or anyone else thinks or feels about anything.If either or both of us are wrong,I will admit my end of it all,would you?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 





WTC "supposedly" had no internal structure failure


Says who?

Certainly not Frank DeMartini, who called down to his office after climbing the North Tower to the impact area and telling them he thought the building was in danger of at least a partial collapse.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by dilly1
 





If planes were such a hindrance to steel man made structures ,,,then the Japanese should have won the Pacific during world war 2. Not one Kamikaze attack sunk a US carrier(or auxiliary ships) nor derailed the US carrier primary mission do to a kamikaze attack. And kamikaze planes had bombs too and our carriers kept on going. (Look it up)


Oh really?

www.history.navy.mil...

USS Bismarck Sea (CVE-95) sunk by Kamikaze aircraft off Iwo Jima, Volcano Islands, 21 February 1945.

USS Ommaney Bay (CVE-79) sunk by Kamikaze attack south of Mindoro, Philippine Islands, 4 January 1945.

USS Abner Read (DD-526) sunk by Kamikaze attack in Leyte Gulf, Philippine Islands, 1 November 1944

I could go on.....

Its a prime reason why most of us refuse to respond to your spamming posts about concrete and jet fuel. You ignore the truth.
.



What truth?


Those USS carriers sunk because of loss of water pressure ,internal bombs exploding from the kamikaze attack and oh yea the jap planes had BOMBS too.




Funny you only focus on the kamikaze part and ignore my main point which I will repeat for the 100th time: explain how 116ton jet holding 22,000 gallons of jet fuel can pulverize 500,000 tons of concrete(10,000psi) and mild steel.


Its unbelievable you people only focus on kamikaze. Focus on WTC.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Woah now. Can't we all calm down, have some tea together, and discuss what we think instead of just waving each other off as "Truther" or Believer", and laying on the insults?

No? Okay then.

On to the bringing down of the buildings and their symmetric collapse. Now, a disclaimer here; I'm not a construction worker, nor am I an engineer. I have some demolition experience and training from my time in the military (Sapper course), but that's just demoing things like small buildings, bunkers, and bridges.

Now, I can say that of course the plane didn't "pulverize 500,000 tons of concrete", it took something like an hour after impact for the towers to fall if I remember correctly. What that tells me is that the initial impact carried enough force from impact and explosion to damage the support structure. This damage would put stress on the remainder of the support structure that would increase steadily as the damage increased from the continued pressure put on it. Eventually (maybe in about an hour...) the stress on the undamaged areas would be too great, causing them to be damaged as well. Once your support structure is gone...well...

Now, I would think that a catastrophic failure is something the engineers would think of. After all, no one wants to build the tower that falls over sideways and crushes six smaller buildings and 240 people, do they?Maybe, and this is just coming from theory since I've done no actual research on the subject, but maybe the buildings were designed to fail in that manner if they had to fail. Straight down rather than to the side.
edit on 8/15/2011 by RedGod because: I'm bad at numbers.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join