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: 27
33
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Scalded Frog
 



It's a well documented fact that Bush and Cheney gave their testimony together refusing to take an oath and in private... not a typical way to give testimony. Why?

They are the Executive Branch of a government that constitutionally recognizes that the three branches of government are equals. The Commission was an extension of the Legislative Branch. Hence no oath because it would set a precendent that the Executive could be rendered subervient to the Legislative. This is old stuff. Private because it was dealing with matters of national security.

The problem with any lie is you can't trust anything from that point forward.

Well, thats your take on it. Reason dictates otherwise. A person, out of vanity may lie about their age, that is no reason to reject their other testimony.


Where do you come up with this? Bush and Cheney's testimony regarding 9/11 had nothing to do with the three branches of government. If they were under oath, they would have sworn to tell the truth. It would not have set ANY precedent that would render the Executive branch subservient to the Legislative branch. Their testimony was not recorded and no news cameras were allowed in, but that had nothing to do with matters of national security. Besides, at that point, it was kind of late to be worried about national security. You're just making it up as you go along.

It is true about lies. Especially when an elected official lies about something important. Who knows and who cares if somebody lies about their age. That has nothing to do with this. That is a lame comparison.




posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 





OK Witch Hunter lets talk about propaganda for a while.


Cool. But I still sense an edge and detect a taint of sarcasm. Are you trying to prove me right, or are you simply incapable of being civil?

Here's my premise:

Declassified CIA documents as well as candid comments from insiders have exposed an ongoing disinformation program called Operation Mockingbird which has been in place since the forties, well before TV became mainstream.

The Internet is part of that media.

Therefore, in addition to the Mainstream Media, the 911 Truth Movement sites, including conspiracy forums like this one are likely suspects for the spreading of the CIA's disinformation. Posters who are overtly belligerent, or combative, or who refuse to examine evidence, or collaborate in good will, should naturally be considered suspect.





How many times have you typed the words "six steel reinforced concrete walls" ? Where did you get that information from ?


I don't know...how many times? I don't know right now, but I bet you do.



What made you believe it ? When another Truther comes along and types "six steel reinforced concrete walls" are you going to correct him ?


I stated my premise pretty clearly, if you're trying to make me eat some of my earlier words, please get to the point. I make mistakes, but it is not my place to be the thought police, and I don't read every thread.

I might add that when one postulates and posts information to back up a premise, there is always a chance of being wrong. Is this why you refuse to do so?

Also, like the mis-sized wheel, often wrong information is purposefully planted,



edit on 25-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 
I agree I've seen those quotes before and it all makes sense.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by patternfinder
 


Man...I still break out in a rash when I hear that putz speak.


and that lying putz is going to be featured in a 9/11 special Sunday at 10 on National Geograpic channel. I saw a clip and there he was telling his story, and sure enough he was blinking uncontrollably. When a person lies, they will blink uncontrollably. They cannot help it. You watch and you'll see.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by zerimar65
 





and that lying putz is going to be featured in a 9/11 special Sunday at 10 on National Geograpic channel. I saw a clip and there he was telling his story, and sure enough he was blinking uncontrollably. When a person lies, they will blink uncontrollably. They cannot help it. You watch and you'll see.


See? It was my own self preservation that made me stop watching TV.

I would burst into flame.
edit on 25-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by zerimar65
 


It didn't exit the 'E' ring. It was the 'C' ring.

The only reinforced wall was the 'street' side. All the rest were 2 layers of standard sized brick and plaster.

We have cars with drunk drivers going through walls like the latter much less a plane at 300 mph.

The outer wall is "A" the innermost wall is "E". There is a little round hole in "E" in the path of whatever it was that hit the Pentagon would have ended up. What made that little hole in "E"? You give an answer about that little hole, but skip over how that outer hole wasn't big enough for the plane and its wings to fit in. And since the hole wasn't big enough for the wings, which include the two engines and the tail section to fit in, why wasn't there debris left outside? That one little crumpled piece doesn't cut it. Why is it that we can show photographic evidence of the round hole where the Pentagon was hit, and the only photographic evidence of the people against it shows that one little piece of crumpled metal?



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerimar65

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by patternfinder
 


Man...I still break out in a rash when I hear that putz speak.


and that lying putz is going to be featured in a 9/11 special Sunday at 10 on National Geograpic channel. I saw a clip and there he was telling his story, and sure enough he was blinking uncontrollably. When a person lies, they will blink uncontrollably. They cannot help it. You watch and you'll see.


he's lying everytime he opens his mouth.....i think i'm going to head down to nicaragua, i have a friend that lives down there that invited me to stay with him, you all can have this crap ha ha...



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by MajorKarma
 



The 9/11 Responders Are Not Invited!


Really? So if I am a 9/11 Responder and I show up at Ground Zero on 9/11/11 I will be forcibly removed?


Where did it say that? It only said that they were not invited. You exaagerate and it seems all you want to do take the opposing position just to argue. This issue isn't personally about you. What's odd is that you haven't agreed with anything anybody says. Everybody can't be wrong and everything you say happened cannot be all true.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerimar65

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by zerimar65
 


It didn't exit the 'E' ring. It was the 'C' ring.

The only reinforced wall was the 'street' side. All the rest were 2 layers of standard sized brick and plaster.

We have cars with drunk drivers going through walls like the latter much less a plane at 300 mph.

The outer wall is "A" the innermost wall is "E". There is a little round hole in "E" in the path of whatever it was that hit the Pentagon would have ended up. What made that little hole in "E"? You give an answer about that little hole, but skip over how that outer hole wasn't big enough for the plane and its wings to fit in. And since the hole wasn't big enough for the wings, which include the two engines and the tail section to fit in, why wasn't there debris left outside? That one little crumpled piece doesn't cut it. Why is it that we can show photographic evidence of the round hole where the Pentagon was hit, and the only photographic evidence of the people against it shows that one little piece of crumpled metal?


Oh don't forget about that one little flywheel or whatever it was that was way too small to be off a 737 and the 'landing gear' that could have been off the apu for all we know. I've looked at the pics from above, across, inside and out and there just isn't anywhere near enough wreckage, not even if it were in little tiny pieces. And I'm sorry but there should have been at least some pieces of that tail left.. supposedly, it didn't even hit the building.

After being a loadmaster on a C-141 for 8 years, you kinda get aware of things.. like just how much crap is in the body of an airplane. And my plane didn't even have seats or luggage compartments, so, when I look at that 'crash' site, there isn't ANYWHERE near enough crap laying around to indicate anything the size of a C-141 crashed there. And they are fairly comparable to a 737. You just can't imagine the piles of stuff a C-141 can become. That hole should have been so filled with airplane wreckage and parts as to be impassible. You shouldn't even have been able to see the hole!

Ah well, remember the debunkers are probably cut and pasting off of scripts with pre-done answers that they just add their own touches too. Although that post where I talked about that (weirdly, noted as off topic) got removed from earlier in this thread, I still believe it quite true.

I'm firmly convinced that there are dis-info trolls assigned any 'hot NWO forbidden' type of topic like 9-11 or UFO/alien stuff, or of course threads that dare say the Illuminati are real or call into question the 'popular' approved version that there isn't such thing as Illuminati anymore and so on. You'll find them in the religious threads too, although most of those are probably volunteers who don't realize they're being used to reinforce an Illuminati created control tool.

They are a lot more gullible about that topic because they've been trained to stop thinking and just have 'faith'. *ack* So if you can wrap whatever disgusting thing inside some form of how it's just requiring faith and god said so in some interpretation of the bible (like putting worm pills inside hamburger for the dog--to fool them), you can get that crowd to defend just about anything.
edit on 25-8-2011 by DragonriderGal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonriderGal

Originally posted by zerimar65

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by zerimar65
 


It didn't exit the 'E' ring. It was the 'C' ring.

The only reinforced wall was the 'street' side. All the rest were 2 layers of standard sized brick and plaster.

We have cars with drunk drivers going through walls like the latter much less a plane at 300 mph.

The outer wall is "A" the innermost wall is "E". There is a little round hole in "E" in the path of whatever it was that hit the Pentagon would have ended up. What made that little hole in "E"? You give an answer about that little hole, but skip over how that outer hole wasn't big enough for the plane and its wings to fit in. And since the hole wasn't big enough for the wings, which include the two engines and the tail section to fit in, why wasn't there debris left outside? That one little crumpled piece doesn't cut it. Why is it that we can show photographic evidence of the round hole where the Pentagon was hit, and the only photographic evidence of the people against it shows that one little piece of crumpled metal?


Oh don't forget about that one little flywheel or whatever it was that was way too small to be off a 737 and the 'landing gear' that could have been off the apu for all we know. I've looked at the pics from above, across, inside and out and there just isn't anywhere near enough wreckage, not even if it were in little tiny pieces. And I'm sorry but there should have been at least some pieces of that tail left.. supposedly, it didn't even hit the building.

After being a loadmaster on a C-141 for 8 years, you kinda get aware of things.. like just how much crap is in the body of an airplane. And my plane didn't even have seats or luggage compartments, so, when I look at that 'crash' site, there isn't ANYWHERE near enough crap laying around to indicate anything the size of a C-141 crashed there. And they are fairly comparable to a 737. You just can't imagine the piles of stuff a C-141 can become. That hole should have been so filled with airplane wreckage and parts as to be impassible. You shouldn't even have been able to see the hole!

Ah well, remember the debunkers are probably cut and pasting off of scripts with pre-done answers that they just add their own touches too. Although that post where I talked about that (weirdly, noted as off topic) got removed from earlier in this thread, I still believe it quite true.

I'm firmly convinced that there are dis-info trolls assigned any 'hot NWO forbidden' type of topic like 9-11 or UFO/alien stuff, or of course threads that dare say the Illuminati are real or call into question the 'popular' approved version that there isn't such thing as Illuminati anymore and so on. You'll find them in the religious threads too, although most of those are probably volunteers who don't realize they're being used to reinforce an Illuminati created control tool.

They are a lot more gullible about that topic because they've been trained to stop thinking and just have 'faith'. *ack* So if you can wrap whatever disgusting thing inside some form of how it's just requiring faith and god said so in some interpretation of the bible (like putting worm pills inside hamburger for the dog--to fool them), you can get that crowd to defend just about anything.
edit on 25-8-2011 by DragonriderGal because: (no reason given)


i agree totally with your whole post..there are too many variables in this situation that haven't been explained and i seriously want to know where they got those jumpsuits that say "collapse rescue team" that is a serious matter....i had never really noticed it before yank pointed out the american flags on their hats.....



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by TheUnusualSuspect
lol 'Hooper' is a shill.

Do us all a favour and delete your account...."9/11 Commission Report"...god 'elp us...


Shill? What exactly do you mean by that? Do you believe that I am financially remunerated for my efforts here?

What if I just happen to be an interested party that happens to NOT believe that everyone that ever sought political office or wore a uniform is a mass murderer?

Rather than requesting that I leave why not start your own forum where you have control and can ban anyone whom you may not agree with?


Here we get misunderstood Hooper. He really is just an interested party. Uh huh. Nobody is asking you to believe that everyone that ever sought political office or wears a uniform is a mass murderer? I didn't see where anybody said that.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder


i agree totally with your whole post..there are too many variables in this situation that haven't been explained and i seriously want to know where they got those jumpsuits that say "collapse rescue team" that is a serious matter....i had never really noticed it before yank pointed out the american flags on their hats.....


And ya, will never be allowed to be 'explained' but that was a good catch. Why would a maryland 'collapse rescue team be close enough to help?? And really?? A collapse rescue team at all? Sounds like someone is planning to collapse a bunch o' stuff to me, if they've gone to all the trouble to create that team.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerimar65

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by TheUnusualSuspect
lol 'Hooper' is a shill.

Do us all a favour and delete your account...."9/11 Commission Report"...god 'elp us...


Shill? What exactly do you mean by that? Do you believe that I am financially remunerated for my efforts here?

What if I just happen to be an interested party that happens to NOT believe that everyone that ever sought political office or wore a uniform is a mass murderer?

Rather than requesting that I leave why not start your own forum where you have control and can ban anyone whom you may not agree with?


Here we get misunderstood Hooper. He really is just an interested party. Uh huh. Nobody is asking you to believe that everyone that ever sought political office or wears a uniform is a mass murderer? I didn't see where anybody said that.


Well, since you brought it up, hooper... Are you getting financially remunerated for your efforts here or are you a volunteer?? *lol*

And see, that is exactly a tactic the dis-info trolls use. That whole 'exaggerate with oooh so hurt feelings' and self righteous pompousness that you dared accuse them of such nonsense, and how really it is YOUR problem, not theirs. Got to love the predictability of it. I can't tell you how many times I've see it... I am sure most of us have, eh?

And I agree with zerimar... who said anything about people who seek political office or wearing a uniform being mass murderers??? Just dis-info hyperboyle, from what I can see.
edit on 25-8-2011 by DragonriderGal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


Suprise Truther Test Question.

The District of Columbia borders Virginia and what other state.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 





And ya, will never be allowed to be 'explained' but that was a good catch. Why would a maryland 'collapse rescue team be close enough to help?? And really?? A collapse rescue team at all? Sounds like someone is planning to collapse a bunch o' stuff to me, if they've gone to all the trouble to create that team.


Yeah...but I think the word "collapse" was the operative word...that they wanted to plant the suggestion of collapse. I know it sounds simplistic, but I bet that was a carefully planned shot.

See how one photograph can keep us so busy? I have spent god knows how many hours counting rivets and looking at the backgrounds of blurry photographs, without ever questioning the source of the photos...or their veracity.

Don't take my word for it...it could be my power of suggestion at work here, but now when you see shots like this can you imagine how helpless the folks of Germany must have been?

I see this as an obviously staged shot, but I've had ten years of trial and error on the Internet to peel away the layers.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by dilly1

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by galdur
It should be very obvious to most people of common sense that when you have a skyscraper of 1300 feet, you have the more resistance to the force of gravity the closer to ground you get. So, you have this structure light at the top and progressively stronger down. Any notion that a lighter mass from the top would somehow press down increasing resistance from below in a gravity driven event is thus in effect total bunk.



exactly, then when you bring into the equation, the factor of most of the debris that would have been responsible for weight was blown out sideways...therefore creating less downward weight than before the collapse.....



The both of you are making sense. This is very productive . This is the exact thing I am talking about. These are aspects that cannot be debunked. This is common sense.


We need to ignore the debunkers . Do not allow them to get into the conversation.




exactly, so let's make a pact that we won't even entertain those guys....from here on out, lets focus on the fact that the weight of the building was decreasing as it was falling which would have made it even more impossible for the floors to collapse......



The damage to the Twin Towers were in very different places and the damage to Bldg. 7 was from a completely different cause entirely. It's unbelievable that three buildings would fall on that day in the same exact way. The first tower hit was hit higher up and center. The second tower hit was hit maybe at the halfway mark towards a corner. The second tower fell first. It started to fall towards the damaged corner which makes sense, but then all of a sudden, it stops, straightens up and then falls the rest of the way straight down, nice and even, into its footprint. There was no resistance from the lower floors that were still intact. There should have been something, but it all fell in rapid succession. The first tower hit fell second. Now the impact was higher up and there were less floors falling and more floors underneath that were still intact, yet those floors were able to generate enough speed and supposedly had the weight to make the lower intact portion of the tower collapse with no resistance at all. Again, all the way straight down, nice and even into its own footprint. What a coincidence.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


Suprise Truther Test Question.

The District of Columbia borders Virginia and what other state.



Still that they arrived so quickly speaks to premeditation from my perspective. And traffic in that area totally sucks! But none the less, the point being that there was a 'collapse rescue team' at all... yah, sure TPTB weren't up to something. Uh huh.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerimar65

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by dilly1

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by galdur
It should be very obvious to most people of common sense that when you have a skyscraper of 1300 feet, you have the more resistance to the force of gravity the closer to ground you get. So, you have this structure light at the top and progressively stronger down. Any notion that a lighter mass from the top would somehow press down increasing resistance from below in a gravity driven event is thus in effect total bunk.



exactly, then when you bring into the equation, the factor of most of the debris that would have been responsible for weight was blown out sideways...therefore creating less downward weight than before the collapse.....



The both of you are making sense. This is very productive . This is the exact thing I am talking about. These are aspects that cannot be debunked. This is common sense.


We need to ignore the debunkers . Do not allow them to get into the conversation.




exactly, so let's make a pact that we won't even entertain those guys....from here on out, lets focus on the fact that the weight of the building was decreasing as it was falling which would have made it even more impossible for the floors to collapse......



The damage to the Twin Towers were in very different places and the damage to Bldg. 7 was from a completely different cause entirely. It's unbelievable that three buildings would fall on that day in the same exact way. The first tower hit was hit higher up and center. The second tower hit was hit maybe at the halfway mark towards a corner. The second tower fell first. It started to fall towards the damaged corner which makes sense, but then all of a sudden, it stops, straightens up and then falls the rest of the way straight down, nice and even, into its footprint. There was no resistance from the lower floors that were still intact. There should have been something, but it all fell in rapid succession. The first tower hit fell second. Now the impact was higher up and there were less floors falling and more floors underneath that were still intact, yet those floors were able to generate enough speed and supposedly had the weight to make the lower intact portion of the tower collapse with no resistance at all. Again, all the way straight down, nice and even into its own footprint. What a coincidence.


Yah such a coincidence. Despite them being the ONLY tall buildings to ever collapse before or since, from an airplane strike even with a fire (and one didn't even get hit by an airplane for pity sake), it does kinda make you wonder why any helicopter landing on their roofs wouldn't have caused them to collapse previously if they were indeed so incredible flimsy, eh?
edit on 25-8-2011 by DragonriderGal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


The question was:

How long does it take to shear these off the walls.?





why do you think that those would have to be the only things sheered? what happened to the 47 steel vertical columns that just fell in on themselves?


Cut with C4 and a dense metal that is projected into the beam based on a wireless signal -- probably with a small laptop coordinating the floors. Each floor would have a separate coded signal. The larger core -- use Thermate to burn through it as a cutting charge might be too loud. Modern, military grade Thermate can go on like a coat of paint -- so the crew and workers at the office might not even know that is what is getting applied at the time.


... but I suppose you were looking for THEIR answer -- I was just providing the simple answer.


Those vertical pins were to hold the curtain wall and the floors together -- like I said, most floors were set up like a "bridge." The curtain wall had a lot of strength, but, as the government model accurately points out; if the floors totally collapse and the pins pull out -- then nothing holds the curtain wall.

However, to do THAT -- you've got a bunch of vertical columns to get rid of. So the collapse we saw, is totally normal if you assume that there were NO VERTICAL COLUMNS. Which a plane cannot do.

The other thing was the straight-down collapse -- right where the core strength is. On the North Tower I notice about 20 stories leaning over and then they crumble into dust. Is the WIND destroying the structure?


Whatever -- these are old points. But I have to remember that all our "evidence" came from a criminal organization that rigged two elections to get into power, gave away tax breaks to bankrupt us while starting wars on lies, couldn't FIND New Orleans to send Federal Help, had their FEMA leader making money outsourcing the rescue effort and THAT outsourcing company waited too long to rent buses and THAT is why there was no FEDERAL evacuation and Conservatives spent all their time finding excuses to blame everything on the state or the fact that lots of black people lived there.

I mean, everything was one disaster after the other, followed by an excuse that some Non-BushCo person was around the scene.

Means, Motive and Opportunity -- the PRIME suspects were the people obstructing justice and handing out the evidence that Al Qaeda did it. If it were the ONE time, the Bush administration did something evil -- I might actually believe their excuses. But it was just one in a long series of evil things done, with stupid excuses. After a while -- you have to wonder; who is really the idiot in this scenario? The "fool" with billions in his bank account and who ruined the economy and enriched his friends -- or the people who believe that some fool accidentally got into the White House twice?



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


That picture was taken days after Sept 11.

If you want to know about "Collapse rescue team Maryland" then type it in and click search.




top topics



 
33
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join