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.

 

New ATS Survey: The 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

page: 5
69
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
I heard the breaking news on the way to work and going up the stairs I met a colleague who laughed when he saw me and said Hey! Guess what, lame duck Bush just got the war you´ve been babbling about all year!

I was in shock over these terrible events but when I watched on CNN the THIRD skyscraper being annihilated, one that no airliner had hit, I knew that something was very wrong with the story that was being rammed through.


Not to start a debate, but WTC1 did damage WTC7. It wasn't completely random, and it was on fire for like 6-7 hours with no firefighting effort.




posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


That is not enough to collapse the building. Building 7 is what actually convinced me that there was more to the story.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I think it´s very weak apologizing for the official story - which is totally out of touch with physical reality. Any belief in that bunk is purely faith-based. Period.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


In my opinion, believing firmly that it had to be demolitions is equally as bunk. I'm just saying that by observable evidence (which is not apologetics, considering I do believe the government knew about the attacks and allowed them to happen), it is a possibility that the damage and fire cause by tower one's collapse may have led to the collapse 6 or so hours later.

Also, it is really poor form to verbally abuse another member just because they disagree with you. Please, practice civility.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I have not verbally abused you in any way. If people refuse to accept elementary laws of physics they must be on some faith-based level of perception, IMHO.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
 


Even if they showed up in the UFO/ET poll the believers did quite well.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by Varemia
 


I have not verbally abused you in any way. If people refuse to accept elementary laws of physics they must be on some faith-based level of perception, IMHO.


Insulting a person's intelligence because they do not agree with you is a verbal attack. On what honest grounds do you base your assertion? Are you a physicist or an engineer who has dealt with airliner crashes and steel buildings? I cannot help but wonder if you get all your information from biased websites which say they know the truth, but only tell one side, making the direct assumption that anything else is impossible. In fact, lots of things are possible. There are just varying levels of probability. On one hand, you have the official account, which details things caught on tape and by witnesses. Then, you have the conspiracy, in which assumptions are made under the guise of incredulity. Just because you can't believe it happened, doesn't mean it was made up.

Anyway, that's my two cents. I didn't come here to get involved in another pointless conversation with a believer.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I´m not insulting your intelligence in any way. Just because people have a faith-based perception doesn´t necessarily mean that they´re stupid.

According to the official story these physics-violating conditions occurred in the collapse of the towers, which supposedly was due to a gravity driven event:

The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered about zero resistance to the collapse

The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy

Gravity was much stronger than gravity

Energy was not conserved



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by Varemia
 


I´m not insulting your intelligence in any way. Just because people have a faith-based perception doesn´t necessarily mean that they´re stupid.


That's an insult, because I'm not supporting it based on faith. I'm supporting it based on my perception of the evidence, just as you support yours based on your rejection of the evidence. Now, I'm going to look at what you say was violated.


The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered about zero resistance to the collapse


That's not true.


The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy


Also not true.


Gravity was much stronger than gravity


Once again, not true.


Energy was not conserved


Not true. Who has been feeding you straight up lies?



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Again, you ignore elementary laws of physics.

That´s your business of course. I´m not going to discuss this more with you.

It´s clearly pointless.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Just saying that's not true with nothing to support the claim is not an argument.

Where is your evidence there was resistance in the collapse? What do you actually consider resistance?

Explain what you think happened when the first floors impacted, specifically please explain how the equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws, came into play.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


It's like I said, I've seen all this before and dealt with it. Usually the lies are brought on by people assuming that the top of the building is using only its initial mass as a solid block to destroy the lower building. It is also assumed that WTC7 fell all at once, with no internal collapsing before the final outer collapse. It is assumed that concrete "disintegrated," when if you look at even small collapsed building, the cloud is really large. Multiply that to the size of the towers, and it is no longer surprising. It's assumed that steel melted, when there were plenty of metals such as aluminum (with a much lower melting point) that could be dripping out as a result of fire. Then it is assumed that there is no fuel for fires to continue underground after the collapse, when there were broken gas lines and electricity.

I mean, really, being a truther requires more belief than anything I've witnessed aside from religion.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Varemia
 


Just saying that's not true with nothing to support the claim is not an argument.

Where is your evidence there was resistance in the collapse? What do you actually consider resistance?

Explain what you think happened when the first floors impacted, specifically please explain how the equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws, came into play.


Do I look like I care enough? I've made my peace, and I don't have a complex dynamic model to figure this stuff out. It would probably take years just to put together a model of just a couple floors, and that's leaving out various factors. Why don't you tell me what happens? If you think they should just stop and come to rest, then please, illustrate how you know.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


yeah, dude. 3000 people got pulverized in the middle of the day, all world watching... you know...
it's a matter of belief, right? like believing in magic sky pixies or elvis coming back to life when
aliens visit us (finally) and #. you're right. it's a matter of belief. evidence, especially video
evidence, have absolutely nothing to do with all that #.

you keep on "belieiving" the official story (almost), brother. amen. praise the lord.
liza minelli over & out.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by psyop911
 


What is this I don't even...

I never implied that 9/11 didn't happen.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


yeah, bro. keep telling lies to yourself. if that's what it takes to keep you sane, you rock on.
but you know... you're wrong. but hey. it's ok. oh, and by the way? watch tv footage from
that day, especially all three collapses. if you don't smell something fishy, well then...

you just might not be that different neither from those pesky "truthers" nor those religious
crazies and fundies after all.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


You seem to be basing your beliefs on opinions you disagree with rather, than any real science.

The points you being up are really nothing to do with the actual physics of the collapses. It doesn't matter if steel melted or not, 15 concrete floors can not crush, break, destroy, 95 floors to the ground. Especially when it is obviously the concrete and steel pans were not staying in the footprint during the collapse.

The only OS argument left is to pretend the floors did stay in the footprint which evidence shows didn't happen, both visual evidence and known physics. There is simply far more evidence pointing to a controlled demolition than a natural collapse from fires. No evidence has to be twisted, or physics ignored, for a controlled demolition to be fact, the OS requires a lot of assumptions and ignoring of known physics.

When are any of you going to address the laws of motion? Until you do you have nothing but faith based on other peoples opinions. There is no official explanation of the collapses, NIST rejected the pancake theory you are all pushing. Can't you see you are being made fools of by the very people you are supporting? The perps are laughing at you as you continue their dirty work for them.

Added from you other post....


Do I look like I care enough?


Well obviously not. Why can't you just be honest? You make posts, and then when you posts are questioned you cop out with 'I don't care'? I can't believe I wasted my time on you.


edit on 8/31/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


you implied you take bush's word on that whole 9/11 thing. didn't you?



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by psyop911
reply to post by Varemia
 


yeah, bro. keep telling lies to yourself. if that's what it takes to keep you sane, you rock on.
but you know... you're wrong. but hey. it's ok. oh, and by the way? watch tv footage from
that day, especially all three collapses. if you don't smell something fishy, well then...

you just might not be that different neither from those pesky "truthers" nor those religious
crazies and fundies after all.


Isn't it kind of odd that I'm not calling out anyone here individually, merely disagreeing? Is having a different opinion offensive to the conspiracy believers, or is it assumed that I'm stupid and/or in-on-it?

I notice this all the time actually. There's a general lack of courtesy and downright primitive responses to anyone who disagrees. It's one of the many reasons I left for so long, and I see my leaving was quite warranted. I guarantee I won't be back for some time, maybe just to see how the polls are doing. Thanks for ruining ATS for me, guys.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by psyop911
 


They sure were pulverized and blown away.

Read about bone fragments found atop the nearby Deutsche Bank building:

google or yahoo

bone fragments deutsche bank 9/11
edit on 31-8-2011 by galdur because: bad link



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join