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.

 

Regardless of your opinions of 9/11 , you need to read this.

page: 12
33
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





Please be my guest - name some names and post some evidence that the "media" is in on it.


Scroll up.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 24-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by hooper
 





Please be my guest - name some names and post some evidence that the "media" is in on it.


Scroll up.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 24-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)


Be specific, your post went to the top of the page, there is no "up". Moot anyway, no one has ever posted anything specific that would make the "media" suspect. Not even going to bother with the silly concept of the "media".



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


I agree. I think my pilot friend would agree with you too...if he could. From the way he talked about how difficult it would be for even experienced pilots to make the observed maneuvers at those speeds I definitely felt he had his suspicions regarding the OS. He actually went much further than I expected. I don't doubt it would be bad for his career or perhaps even career suicide for him to come right out and say the OS was an impossibility from an airline pilot's point of view, if it were to get back to his employer, so he dances around the edges, like so many others with something to lose.

So many improbabilities, coincidences, first-time occurrences, and suspicious correlations in this matter that the whole thing gives off an increasingly putrid odor to those of us who have idealized notions regarding truth, justice, and what America could and should but doesn't stand for.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





Be specific, your post went to the top of the page, there is no "up". Moot anyway, no one has ever posted anything specific that would make the "media" suspect. Not even going to bother with the silly concept of the "media".


'attaboy



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Would you like to collaborate with me to eliminate the media as suspects?


something just hit me, yank...that video i posted of bush talking about the terrorists planting the bombs high enough in the building so that the people up top would be trapped....sounds like he messed up and had to cover...he didn't say anything about planes hitting the buildings, only that the operatives planted bombs up there....why would he say that? then he had to say, that they planted them far enough up to trap the people up top? why didn't they plant them closer to the bottom so they could trap EVERYBODY, in the tower?....why just the people up top? doesn't make a lick of sense....there might be something to your no plane idea......



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
And why do I need to read this?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 





something just hit me, yank...that video i posted of bush talking about the terrorists planting the bombs high enough in the building so that the people up top would be trapped....sounds like he messed up and had to cover...he didn't say anything about planes hitting the buildings, only that the operatives planted bombs up there....why would he say that? then he had to say, that they planted them far enough up to trap the people up top? why didn't they plant them closer to the bottom so they could trap EVERYBODY, in the tower?....why just the people up top? doesn't make a lick of sense....there might be something to your no plane idea......


Alright, collaboration! (spoken with a french accent like that king of queens guy)

I'm sure there were real mistakes as well as fabricated "intelligence failures" to make it more believable.

I mean, come on...this is adolescent stuff...I once told my folks I got drunk and couldn't drive just to make my lie plausible enough to convince them I hadn't been sneaking into my girlfriend's basement bedroom at night. And like 911's lie, it only worked for a while.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
When you have a 1300 feet high skyscraper you obviously reinforce this structure excessively to prevent gravity from pulling it down to earth. It´s not minimally designed, its reinforcing design is way redundant. The probability that it would ever fall through itself practically without resistance in a gravity driven event is thus zero. If you still believe that this could be realistic according to the official sttory you can not also believe that parachutes work. Can´t have it both ways.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsatrap

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by tpg65
 



Can you back up up anything you have just wrote , with facts ?


Yep and you know what they are. Which way you going with this? Are you going to try the straight denial routine? Or maybe the old "they're all in on it" schtick.

9/11 Commission Report.





Hooper, they won't believe anything associated with the govt, however...

How about the popular mechanics special edition where they debunk each 9/11 conspiracy one by one....

I saw loose change years back and for a couple years, thought it was plausible. Although, I was never extremely nasty and aggressive with those views, like the "truthers" who go to ground zero and yell at the family members of victims, firemen, cops, and emts saying its all a lie. I still don't know how none of them got knocked the f### out!

The popular mechanics issue broke it down piece by piece with *gasp* science and it made me feel kind of stupid for even entertaining those conspiracies. Loose change was made by a couple college kids; popular mechanics debunked them with specialists in aeronautics, architecture, engineering, chemistry, physics, etc....who's explanation is more valid objectively?

I know it is hard to be objective when you have subscribed to an idea with all your heart, but the facts are there.
And op, you can't say that someone's opinion isn't welcome here because you don't agree with it. Who are you? The govt?



If you'd bothered to educate yourself on construction instead of believing a magazine company you would know the truth. Big f***ing difference.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
The OP in this thread is nothing more than trolling and trying to stir up "debate" for stars and flags. If you show him a serial number off of a part of the plane sticking out of a piece of rubble he will deny it is evidence. If you show him a video showing the demolition to be caused by the Borg he will believe it to be fact.

Confirmation Bias at its best. No need for me to offer any input into this thread when the OP is so biased.



That's because you have blind faith. You have blind faith in reports produced by federal agencies. You choose not to learn the fundamentals of construction. Have fun with your faith.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by tpg65
 


Put Options, Put Options , Put Options
The largest number of put options on the market in history on 9/10, 2001---
the numbers speak beyond most accusations of an insider job......
100,000,000 was made---lucky guess??



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I'm no american, but I am a human, and as such a one, I can tell you I feel with you, and I wish you and your people all the best!

May you find a way to bring those murderers to justice, and may you find hope and peace again!

Finally, most of the people of the world are in the same boat, because most of us have been sold by egotistic a******s just for their own profit.

For us and for our children, I hope, that one day peace and justice will rule this earth. And I know, whatever is up in the heavens and the skies, it will back us in the end.


edit on 24/8/11 by Peloquin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Also, the way these massive structures are constructed is that the closer to ground the more massive the reinforcing structure becomes. This should be pretty obvious. So, the reinforcing steel at the top is maybe one fourth or less of that of the bottom, So, you have according to the official story lesser mass driving down greater mass practically without resistance in a gravity driven event.. Face it folks, this bunk is all out of Hollywood.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
When you have a 1300 feet high skyscraper you obviously reinforce this structure excessively to prevent gravity from pulling it down to earth. It´s not minimally designed, its reinforcing design is way redundant. The probability that it would ever fall through itself practically without resistance in a gravity driven event is thus zero. If you still believe that this could be realistic according to the official sttory you can not also believe that parachutes work. Can´t have it both ways.


Lets think about that for a moment. You want to build a very tall building. You can either build it with massive reinforcement, but then you start getting into a circular design loop, the more reinforcement, the more dead load, the more dead load the more reinforcement is required. Or you can go the other route, lighten the dead load by reducing the structural cross sections and let the building design transfer the load rather than directly support it to an eventual resting spot, the earth or foundation.

Look at photos of the towers - which way do you think they went, design wise? Massive simple reinforcement or intelligent, complex load transfer systems?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Good point. Maybe"meant to happen" is the key stone here.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by lamabomb
reply to post by tpg65
 


Put Options, Put Options , Put Options
The largest number of put options on the market in history on 9/10, 2001---
the numbers speak beyond most accusations of an insider job......
100,000,000 was made---lucky guess??


That's a solid statistical argument - I guess I wouldn't be out of line to ask you where you got your numbers?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by tpg65
 


Where is the evidence of a demolition? Physical evidence. Not a picture, video or paint chip. Where, after 10 long years, is the evidence. That is a question that I have asked for on these forums for over 5 years.

Problem is that most people only look at part of what happened that day and also think that anything considered the OS is not valid based of not their own research but by paraphrasing the AETruth site or any of the prison planet references.

I do not believe that the WTC complex collapses involved explosives nor was there a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon. I do however feel 93 was covered up as well as 587. Sad part is, that even though I do not believe the government on this issue I am branded a 'sheeple' or OS'er because i have actually read the 9/11 Commission report as well as the entire NIST report. The largest problem with the Truth movement is that you immediately discredit it without your own investigation or taking the time to read the facts an not paraphrased website or web links.

I have watched Loose Change and the continuation and the update. To me it is brainwashing in the way the information is presented. It is like interrogating someone. If you beat them long enough they will tell you they are your father. In these cases, the uneducated to 9/11 watch a video and immediately think BUsh and Co pulled it off yet they think Bush was the stupiest president ever. Which is it? It is the one that fits the post at the time.

Please do not take this as a cut to your thread but I want you, as the OP, to understand that most that understand, not believe, what happened that day are not pushing an agenda but simply trying to stop the disinfo that is spread based on assumption, perception and ones one reconstruction of the laws of physics.



Truthers avoid people like this guy. He's is another hooper. He is here to annoy you. His avatar gives it away.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


It is my understanding that wind-loads are the single biggest force expected to affect structures such as these. An architect friend of mine once told me in response to a question I had about the high rises in downtown LA surviving an earthquake that they were automatically strong enough to survive any foreseeable seismic event due to the strength already built into them required to handle wind-loading. I admit this is anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt or some quick Googling.
edit on 24-8-2011 by Elbereth because: typo



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   




posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
Also, the way these massive structures are constructed is that the closer to ground the more massive the reinforcing structure becomes. This should be pretty obvious. So, the reinforcing steel at the top is maybe one fourth or less of that of the bottom, So, you have according to the official story lesser mass driving down greater mass practically without resistance in a gravity driven event.. Face it folks, this bunk is all out of Hollywood.



Your approach is on track. Your using your logical mind. Don't stop! Don't let trolls like hooper derail you. Avoid talking to people like hooper or any debunker . They won't listen to you they don't care about you intelligence. They want to make you stupid.


Ignore all debunkers!!!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join