It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


AJ and Truthers are dangerous to America and the world!

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by vipertech0596

The building was shifting?! Wow! What could have caused that? Lets see - there was a chunk of building cut out of one side and it was "shifting" -- whatever that means -- and there were out of control fires in various portions of the building, yet the whole building fell nearly straight down leaving a neat little pile. That really stretches the limits of credulity and NOTHING you present is going to change my opinion.

The OP is absolutely correct in that AJ and the Truthers are a threat. I'm delighted to see the effect this has on the gestapo police state and its gormless minions.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:39 PM
reply to post by Smack

Neatly? So neatly that it damaged EVERY building around, including one so badly that IT had to be torn down. It is hilarious how often "truthers" spout off about how neat WTC 7 was.....and then prove they dont really know the facts.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:57 PM
There was once a time when people who thought the world was round and orbited around the sun were ridiculed beyond belief. They were laughed at, but it took time for the truth to become common place.

There will also be a time in the future, when the true story of 9/11 will be widely known and common place. Historians will discuss the ridicule that "the truth movement" received, and the classroom will laugh at the stupidity of the masses that accepted an official story from a corrupted government.

Say what you will say about "truthers," but only ignorant people can believe:

1. 3 skyscrapers collapsed due to fire. (despite it never happening before or since in all of modern history; 1 building collapsed within hours despite not being hit by a plane).

2. 4 hijacked planes were allowed to fly openly in US airspace (despite National Security protocol, that would normally on any other day have called for fighter Jets to intercept/ shoot down; see below).

3. Numerous "war games" that simulated flight hijackings were occurring the same day due to coincidence. (War games that left out airspace naked in terms of defense).

4. The evidence of nano-Thermite (US weapons grade) being found in dust samples as being unimportant. (Again, the key word here is weapons grade. How the hell could an experimental version of thermite end up in the dust?)

5. Despite numerous reports (firefighters, police, news, victims) of explosions taking place before the collapses of both buildings on the lower floors, the omission of such testimony from the 9/11 commission report is not important. (Again, why was this omitted from the report, along with building 7?)

I could go on and on. I can only hope that one day, our future generation is not as brainwashed as the current one. Sorry to say, but the real danger to this world is not AJ or "truthers," but anyone who could blindly support a war driven government.

I'll be the first to admit it. Immediately after 9/11 I believed everything that Bush and co. feed us. Everything. But then, my brain eventually kicked in.... Thank god.
edit on 26-8-2011 by squidboy because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:00 PM
For one,what's a "truther"?

2,Why are you talking about Loose Change?

3,What makes you believe the official story?

4,What makes a truther dangerous?You haven't said why,you only posted a quote.

5,Why aren't terrorist soldiers of war?They fight for a cause.And so does America..always..always fighting!

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by squidboy

2. 4 hijacked planes were allowed to fly openly in US airspace (despite National Security protocol, that would normally on any other day have called for fighter Jets to intercept/ shoot down; see below).

Just who and when did we have a protocal to shoot down passenger jets?

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:07 PM

Originally posted by samkent
Here’s why others and myself come here to refute the ignorant ideas of truthers.

People and countries whom should be helping in the fight against terrorism are starting to doubt that 911 ever happened.


Wahab Khan Maseeb, 20, leaves his lectures at the medical faculty in Abbottabad. A young Pakistani-American in jeans and a T-shirt, he was in school in Brooklyn on that fateful day 10 years ago. He saw the ash cover everything.

But was it an Islamist attack? Wahab hesitates. Like others, he saw the "Loose Change" series of documentary films, which accused elements of the US government of carrying out the 9/11 attacks.

"It was pretty convincing," he says.

The constant lies and misrepresentations have chipped and chipped the minds of those who have only seen stills and video clips of the event.

AJ and his ilk have profited at the expense of our future security. If 911 had been an attack against a single company he would have been sued into bankruptcy over his lies.

What if the Afghanistan and Pakistan governments believe the crap peddled by Loose Change? They could toss us out and embrace AQ and the Taliban. The results would be more attacks.

It's one thing to pose a question now and then. But the constant steam of BS put out by AJ and his cronies is starting to threaten our security.

From you post I take it that you have no problem with the USA sticking it's nose into other countries freedoms to decide who or how they run their countries? This has been a major problem with the USA since ww2 and the creation of the CIA.

The reason most countries hate the USA id because of CIA and military meddling in their countries. In the 50's we shot, killed more south american dulie elected presidents and in the the 60's we killed the president of S. Vietnam and so on and so on. And American wonder why does the world hate us?

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:16 PM
I've been a lurker for a while and don't post much, but felt compelled to add something to this thread.

I really wish that we can put this "9-11" thing to rest.

Here's what I have seen happen in the last 10 years.

Wars, death, financial crisis, arguing...etc.

It seems similar to the war on drugs. Who is the enemy? When will it end? If this is what it takes to fight this so called "terrorism", it's obviously not working and we should get rid of the patriot act, bring our soldiers home and take the risk. I would much rather live free and in peace and risk death by a terrorist attack than live this way...if in fact there really is a terrorist threat.

Funny because all of these ghetto gangsters here in south Sacramento now have criminal records that say they have committed terrorist threats....when in fact all that they did was tell their baby moma that "if you say anything, I'll kill you". They used to have records that said assault, battery, armed robbery and its all shifted to terrorism. Who was the patriot act intended for anyway?

Anyway, a little off topic, I hope that this all works out the way it should soon and the people responsible are brought to justice...before this piece of history is simply forgotten. Just my 2 cents...

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:21 PM
okay, to those who believe building 7 was characteristic of a burning building.. find just ONE building that burns and falls in its footprint neatly.

second.. Nano-Thermite and molten steel.. prove me wrong.

Third.. none of the buildings falls where typical.. if just one fell I would say, "okay this could be just a freak accident"

If two fall strangely. "that's kinda odd.. I'm curious now"


posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:21 PM
reply to post by Vanishr

I think they were. Or at the very least they were known but allowed to happen. There has not been any proof yet, nearly a decade later, to an actual forceful attempt to cause the 9/11 event by the US government

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:24 PM
reply to post by ConspiraCity

Well actually it was kind of unprecedented, so there's not a whole lot to look at for other examples.

Furthermore, thermite could easily have formed from the elements available and the conditions present.

And dinally, all buildings had the same minimalist design style. A style very flawed. Since 9/11, many designs have taken up increased redundancies, andif you visit ground zero today, you can see the massive redundancies they added to prevent future disasters.

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:04 PM
The sneering skeptics and self-appointed debunkers of anything and everything not ordained by TPTB often ignore that there has already been proven lying by those officials who helped to bring the OS into being.

The Washington Post: 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

“We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied.” Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration.
my bolding

Review of senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission John Farmer’s book.
NY Times Book Review: The Lies They Told

Farmer scrutinizes F.A.A. and Norad records to provide irrefragable evidence that a day after a Sept. 17 White House briefing, both agencies suddenly altered their chronologies to produce a coherent timeline and story that “fit together nicely with the account provided publicly by Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz and Vice President Cheney.”
my bolding

Those self-important, condescending, pseudo or to be kind perhaps quasi-intellectual worshipers of the delivered wisdom who hold the feeble OS as sacrosanct and consider all other viewpoints as being held by ignorant simpletons would do well to ponder some of the less convenient "known knowns," such as the as yet unexplained trail of lies from the F.A.A. and the Pentagon.

Where there are lies, there is smoke. Where there is smoke....
edit on 26-8-2011 by Elbereth because: fix link

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:22 PM

Think this clip speaks for itself.

In a longer clip from the local ABC affiliate, not one media member asks him about not seeing any plane parts. I guess it's best not to draw attention to an important statement like that.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 12:02 AM

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by squidboy

2. 4 hijacked planes were allowed to fly openly in US airspace (despite National Security protocol, that would normally on any other day have called for fighter Jets to intercept/ shoot down; see below).

Just who and when did we have a protocal to shoot down passenger jets?

"The chief of U.S. air defenses testified today that if his command had been notified immediately of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings and ordered to intervene, U.S. fighter jets would have been able to shoot down all four of the airliners that were seized by terrorists and that ultimately crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania." Washington Post, 6/17/2004

"Air Force Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), told the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that had the Federal Aviation Administration conveyed word of the hijackings as soon it knew of them, "yes, we could shoot down the airplanes." Washington Post, 6/17/2004

"Three months before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration changed the protocol for responding to commercial hijackings. Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense under President George W. Bush, issued directive J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on June 1, 2001. Prior to Rumsfeld’s protocol change, some experts believe that the authority to shoot down a hijacked airplane was delegated by the president to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The 9/11 Commission concluded that approval was needed from the president to shoot down the hijacked aircraft. " All voices, 10/14/2010

"Regardless of the motives behind Rumsfeld's protocol change on June 1, 2001—which specifically states that the secretary of defense must approve the shooting down of hijacked airplanes—the secretary of defense could not be found the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, from the time the hijackings began until the last airplane had crashed." All voices, 10/14/2010

Where was Rumsfeld?

So protocols existed, but there was a breakdown in communication. When you consider certain protocols were changed 3 months prior to 9/11, by Rumsfeld giving himself authority to shoot down and he did not, well that should have been investigated.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 12:25 AM
I was thinking, of course we are a threat, we will get them down for what they did.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:26 AM
I'm proud to be a threat to the criminals in power.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:44 AM
reply to post by samkent

ok, lets just say tower 1 and tower 2 came down because of the jet fuel.

that doesn't explain building 7. it didn't have jet fuel. only some debris and office supplies fire. yet it came down like the first two buildings. i am not saying it was an inside job. i am not saying it's terrorists. i (and others) am merely asking how did this happen? not only did it collapse, but it fell on its own footprint. for building 7 to burn to the ground, every safety system would have to fail. sprinklers, alarms, everything. no time to put out the fires started by falling (molten) rubble from a building a block away?

it's not bad to ask questions.

this is a pretty good thread. star and flag.


posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 06:31 AM
If fires caused the collapse, where are they in the footage? Neither during the collapse nor after the collapse is there any evidence of this firey inferno.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 09:21 AM
reply to post by samkent

you seem to be stuck on this point. It was known that it WOULD fall at some point.

That's right ! Thet knew ahead of time because the building was rigged. You've got it. See that wasn't so hard.
edit on 27-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 11:33 AM
reply to post by squidboy

. When you consider certain protocols were changed 3 months prior to 9/11, by Rumsfeld giving himself authority to shoot down and he did not, well that should have been investigated.

I'm sure it was (internally), but the timeline was so short.
Had he had more time he might have given the orders. But up until 8:46 that morning no hijacked plane had been used as a weapon. It could have been an accident that it hit the WTC at that point in time. Now when 9:02 (16 minutes later) rolls around and the second planes hits, Yes it's an attack. But where's the next target? You need to know so you can shoot before it hits it's target.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 11:36 AM
reply to post by randyvs

That's right ! Thet knew ahead of time because the building was rigged. You've got it. See that wasn't so hard.

If all three were rigged why did one fall straight down and the other two crumble down from the top?

Shouldn't all three have fallen in the same mannor?

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in