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.

 

Why is that.......

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Been awhile since I have started a thread and after reading several threads this week, Ive come up with some questions for discussion.

Why is it that the mass media makes mistakes on EVERY major news story day ("Jim Brady has died" "11 of 12 miners found alive" "Columbia was traveling at 18 times the speed of light" etc) and that is expected and accepted. When the BBC screws up one thing on 9/11, it becomes conspiracy fodder, why is that?

Why is it when it takes professional demolition crews MONTHS to wire small buildings for demolition, people think that both Towers and WTC7 were wired in less than a day, why is that?

Why is it that when George Bush, on a good day, could hardly string together two sentences without mangling the rules of grammer, people expect him to be English Professor perfect on one of the worst days in American History, why is that?

Why is it, that when throughout history engineering projects prove to have fatal flaws (Challenger, Tacoma Narrows Bridge, KC Hyatt walkways, Ford Pinto), people will accept the word of an engineer that a building would survive being hit by an airliner without question, why is that?



That should be a decent start.....if I think of others, I will add them, but for now......lets discuss.....




posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Why is it that the mass media makes mistakes on EVERY major news story day ("Jim Brady has died" "11 of 12 miners found alive" "Columbia was traveling at 18 times the speed of light" etc) and that is expected and accepted. When the BBC screws up one thing on 9/11, it becomes conspiracy fodder, why is that?


Because saying a building has collapsed when it hasn't, and then lo and behold it does, is more than a 'mistake'.
Especially in light of all the evidence of controlled demolition.


Why is it when it takes professional demolition crews MONTHS to wire small buildings for demolition, people think that both Towers and WTC7 were wired in less than a day, why is that?


As far as I know no one is claiming that. IMO they could have been set up months before 911.


Why is it, that when throughout history engineering projects prove to have fatal flaws (Challenger, Tacoma Narrows Bridge, KC Hyatt walkways, Ford Pinto), people will accept the word of an engineer that a building would survive being hit by an airliner without question, why is that?


I don't think anyone is believing that without question. Anyone with an engineering background can see why that would be a fact anyway, it's only questionable to the layman. But regardless what difference does it make to anything? There is more to the collapses than just what the planes did, or didn't do.


That should be a decent start.....if I think of others, I will add them, but for now......lets discuss.....


Start for what, more questions that really have no meaning?



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Been awhile since I have started a thread and after reading several threads this week, Ive come up with some questions for discussion.

Why is it that the mass media makes mistakes on EVERY major news story day ("Jim Brady has died" "11 of 12 miners found alive" "Columbia was traveling at 18 times the speed of light" etc) and that is expected and accepted. When the BBC screws up one thing on 9/11, it becomes conspiracy fodder, why is that?

Why is it when it takes professional demolition crews MONTHS to wire small buildings for demolition, people think that both Towers and WTC7 were wired in less than a day, why is that?

Why is it that when George Bush, on a good day, could hardly string together two sentences without mangling the rules of grammer, people expect him to be English Professor perfect on one of the worst days in American History, why is that?

Why is it, that when throughout history engineering projects prove to have fatal flaws (Challenger, Tacoma Narrows Bridge, KC Hyatt walkways, Ford Pinto), people will accept the word of an engineer that a building would survive being hit by an airliner without question, why is that?



That should be a decent start.....if I think of others, I will add them, but for now......lets discuss.....



Thanks. I agree with much of what you said.

My reply is why do we tend to believe something as fact when there are no facts to make it a truth?

If someone sees a UFO, it's purported, but if a skeptoid denies it, it's a debunk and a hoax?

If the story says a plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon but that the mass of the plane is unaccounted for and the two huge jet engines didn't leave a scratch, why do we buy the story to begin with?

There's no good answer... except that we tend to believe for the reason of peace of mind and comfort.

No UFOs means we are still the masters of the universe.

9.11 happened just as we are told because it means we don't have to face the possibility that our government and our nation was part of something to utterly horrible... and equally, so we don't bear a measure of the guilt and shame that goes with it.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
people think that both Towers and WTC7 were wired in less than a day, why is that?

There are very few people that actually believe that the WTC buildings were wired in less than a day or a couple days. Anybody who thinks they were is extremely lacking in the research department and doesn't really know what they're talking about.

Furthermore, the continued singling out of the most outrageous theories that are not accepted by the greater truth movement, and then trying to associate those outrageous, unaccepted theories with the entire truth movement, shows there is an agenda in progress.



Originally posted by vipertech0596
people will accept the word of an engineer that a building would survive being hit by an airliner without question, why is that?

Because most of us are educated enough to know how the towers were constructed, and educated enough to know that aluminum planes cannot do significant damage to a massive steel structure as the towers. NIST's own faulty report shows that the damage to the towers was minimal.

The proof that the lead engineer, John Skilling, was correct is that the towers still stood tall and strong after the impacts.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Because saying a building has collapsed when it hasn't, and then lo and behold it does, is more than a 'mistake'.


And declaring a Government official dead, is an acceptable mistake, or falsely telling us that people have survied a mining accident is acceptable?

Again, an superb illustration of my point. Any other news story, you will accept a MAJOR error.....however, for 9/11, you will accept NO errors. I was not surprised that you would be among the first to comment.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   


Furthermore, the continued singling out of the most outrageous theories that are not accepted by the greater truth movement, and then trying to associate those outrageous, unaccepted theories with the entire truth movement, shows there is an agenda in progress



Nope, no agenda. And NOWHERE did I associate those "outrageous, unaccepted" theories with the entire truth movement.

Although, I do thank you for agreeing that the outrageous idea that BBC's mistake in reporting the premature death of WTC 7 is proof of an "inside job".



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Not everyone points at stupid things like that. I have never said they rigged building 7 in a day, only idiots believe that. As far as i'm concerned the mistake on the news is of no signifigance. The people involved and the events leading up to that day are very telling.

And then here I will ask again. How did 3 buildings defy physics. Why did wtc 7 fall straight down when it was damaged on one side? When wtc 1 started to lean one way, what caused the global failure of the columns on the opposite side? Please explain to me how physics fits the official story.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by godfather420
 





How did 3 buildings defy physics.


Did they? Or did they just not act the way YOU think they should have? I would ask what your training in Physics is, since many on here seem to be Internet experts. My degree is not in physics, therefore, I am not qualified to discuss it (unlike the majority of the armchair physics majors on ATS). However, the two physicists that I know and trust, have explained it to me.....after telling me their opinions on the 9/11 truth movement.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Why is it, that you appear to just be trying to mimic Ron Paul with this thread? What if your questions go unanswered? Nothing! What happens if you refuse a new investigation? Nothing good!

ANOK got it right. End of discussion.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
Why is it, that you appear to just be trying to mimic Ron Paul with this thread? What if your questions go unanswered? Nothing! What happens if you refuse a new investigation? Nothing good!

ANOK got it right. End of discussion.


Really? Hmm....since im not a Ron Paul fan, I wouldn't know if I was doing what you accuse me of.

As for my questions, I dont really expect an HONEST answer from someone on the "truther" side of the debate. Too great a chance they would have to admit their positions aren't logical.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596


Really? Hmm....since im not a Ron Paul fan, I wouldn't know if I was doing what you accuse me of.

As for my questions, I dont really expect an HONEST answer from someone on the "truther" side of the debate. Too great a chance they would have to admit their positions aren't logical.


Wanting a REAL investigation into a pivitol moment in history isn't being a "truther". its being logical. I'm sorry.. sorry I think the investigation into this event is worth more than whether Clinton had relations with Monica. Perhaps you should once, close your eyes in a dark room and ponder why it is you don't want one.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Well please tell me what your physicist friends said.

Because you don't need a degree to understand that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. According to the OS pancake theory that building should have took 45+ seconds to fall if you factor in the resistance of each floor of the "largely undamaged" portion of each tower.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_laws_of_motion



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


You might want to research my posts. I've stated on numerous occasions why you will never see an "honest" investigation and why an "honest" investigation would not be in the countries best interest due to the witchhunt it would become.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
It is odd that it was stated that building 7 had collapsed before hand..but like you say..it happens.

It is outrageous the explanation as to why building 7 collapsed in the first place(especially the way it collapsed)..

Peace



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
There is no one in the Truth Movement intelligent enough to figure out the mystery of who farted, let alone lead a "new independent investigation under oath with subpoena power".



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Why is it that the mass media makes mistakes on EVERY major news story day ("Jim Brady has died" "11 of 12 miners found alive" "Columbia was traveling at 18 times the speed of light" etc) and that is expected and accepted. When the BBC screws up one thing on 9/11, it becomes conspiracy fodder, why is that?


Because saying a building has collapsed when it hasn't, and then lo and behold it does, is more than a 'mistake'.
Especially in light of all the evidence of controlled demolition.


OR:

Maybe when people have a pretty good idea its gonna collapse because all the signs are pointing to a collapse, and they warn, be careful, that thing is gonna collapse, that is called making an educated observation. The building is showing signs of oncoming collapse, ergo it will be reported as "about to collapse". How soon is anyone's guess. Then some shmuck overhears this "about to collapse" part, starts to send it down the wire, and then, lo and behold, someone goofs and turns it into "has just collapsed". Yes it was mistake. Just like those reports of a small plane hitting the WTC, car bombs at the State Dept, explosions on the DC Mall, etc. Let me guess, they were all parts of the script too, but were screwed up when their plans changed?





As far as I know no one is claiming that. IMO they could have been set up months before 911.


Right, because now, you have the Port Authority in on it, building engineers in on it, the maintenance workers in on it, supervisors, firefighters, and anyone else tasked with the upkeep of the Towers. They'd be the ones to discover any "strange" additions or explosives planted in the WTCs. So are you now believing all of these people are in on it?




I don't think anyone is believing that without question. Anyone with an engineering background can see why that would be a fact anyway, it's only questionable to the layman. But regardless what difference does it make to anything? There is more to the collapses than just what the planes did, or didn't do.


Of course. It wasnt just the planes, nor was it just the fires. It was a combination of the airplane's impact, the fires they started, the spread of the fires, and the time for the structure to become more and more unstable due to the fires and damage. Its sad how truthers like to ignore or forget all of the things that helped it along.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Myendica
 


You might want to research my posts. I've stated on numerous occasions why you will never see an "honest" investigation and why an "honest" investigation would not be in the countries best interest due to the witchhunt it would become.


oh, so lemme stop all research so I can view all your posts regarding 9/11? yea.. you are a no body just like 99% of everyone else on this site. So your opinion has no weight. maybe if you would advocate an investigation, we would get one since you think your opinion is so powerful.. people like you is why we don't investigate..



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


Wow, an attempt to insult me.

I was merely pointing out that you were operating under a false assumption (surprise,surprise) in regards to me.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
The whole point is, they did not make a mistake. Columbia did not travel at 18 times the speed of light. That was a mistake. They reported the collapse of building 7 early. Then it is demolished.

So you have an obvious controlled demolition regardless of the "mistake" of the BBC and a reuters feed that announced the sceduled demolition. Then we are told it was a collapse due to damage and invisible fires. Now you dont see a problem, when everybody else on here sees the problem.

WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, if you put the "collapse" of WTC 7 next to an admitted controlled demolition, they look the same, not kinda the same, but exactly the same. There is even that slight tilt of the roof when it is 2/3rds on the way down.
edit on 28-8-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Nope, no one reported that WTC7 was scheduled for demolition. It was reported that officials were concerned it was going to collapse. THEN the BBC made their mistake.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join