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.

 

Enough with the dishonest behaviour Truthers - I'm calling you out.

page: 12
60
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Konstantinos


And you call truthers dumb?

but the insulation was to prevent fires from spreading, not to prevent metal from heating up.


This is why we "call truthers dumb"




posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Whats the point of this thread? Absolutely useless. Move it to the rant or trash it



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I think Jeb Bush was down in Florida on a secret TV watching it all go as planned.And governor Perry was also in on all of this as well.I mean lets use common sense.

edit on 12-9-2011 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by wrkn4livn
 


That sounds reasonable. But I would question why the jet vaporizes when it hits the wall, but notice it didn't go through it, unlike the pentagon...9 feet of steel reinforced concrete yet burrowed through it like it was butter. The video you reference hardly dents that wall.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by aero56

You know Captain, sometimes you just know in your gut, something isn't right. You may not have the physicial evidence, or you may not even need it, you just know something isn't right.


This is we call a witch hunt. Get the facts. Understand the facts.

The truth movement has no evidence. That's a fact.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Jobeycool
 


You're forgetting Sarah Palin too, hey let's all just kill this thread with useless garbage posts!



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by axslinger
reply to post by wrkn4livn
 


That sounds reasonable. But I would question why the jet vaporizes when it hits the wall, but notice it didn't go through it, unlike the pentagon...9 feet of steel reinforced concrete yet burrowed through it like it was butter. The video you reference hardly dents that wall.


The pentagon did not have 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Konstantinos
 


agreed, posting info backing the OS is just too hard. not to mention the nist report doesnt give any, so it makes sense that they have to ignore other evidence exists. they dont wanna have to try to explain it and get caught in a lie now do they??
edit on 12-9-2011 by Venomilk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Come to think of it I think Sarah Palin had a secret need to know bases as well up their in Alaska.She was doing secret under water diving missions to secret bases for HAARP as HAARP also was shaking the foundation of the WTC so it could collapse easier.

edit on 12-9-2011 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Jobeycool
 


Evidently I was not conveying my message to you clearly, and I really don't see anyone else laughing with you.
edit on 12-9-2011 by Konstantinos because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Venomilk
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


theres no point anymore..... they obviously have what happened firmly in their minds and will never accept that there is more evidence of what happened than what they say there is. just because they say it isnt there, or never looked, doesnt mean it not there.

im done. anyone ignoring the proof of molten steel under the towers will ignore any other evidence.
the steel couldve been melted by them damn ayrabs, but we never try to explain how.
so whats the point of bringing up any evidence?
you go based on the evidence available, not whatever evidence could be used to make your "THEORY" fit better

yes, the OS is a theory. 9/11 forums are haunted by ignorance and frustrated questioning....




When you ACTUALLY READ the Government reports on the JFK assassination -- and you EXPLAIN government FACTS to people who "Know" JFK was killed by a single shooter -- you get the same "eyes rolling" and "tin-foil-hat" response.

Very few people know much about the JFK assassination BEYOND what they saw on TV or read in the media that supports the "single shooter." They don't know a thousand other facts that contradict that theory. MANY facts from the Government itself. The OFFICIAL conclusion was; "JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy, and there were efforts to cover it up." But NOBODY will listen to you actually telling them the ACTUAL facts from "legitimate" court documents.


The SAME is true about 9/11. The ONLY people who seem to know anything at all about it, are the Truthers-- and the "debunkers" who only show up on ATS. They think the NIST and FBI and all these other groups have conclusively proven something. No, only the Bush administration and the MEDIA declared what happened on 9/11 and repeated it.

The 9/11 Commission said; "WE were stymied, it was a coverup -- we could only document reports that fit the official story."

The NIST said; "Building 7 did NOT fall at a freefall speed" in their computer model. Then when a video came out showing just that, they used the same modeling to conclude; "well here's how it fell at free fall speed as a result of massive fires." New data -- same conclusion.

The NIST did NOT explain how the Twin Towers fell.

The FBI does NOT have Bin Laden, al Qaeda, or the "terror suspects" on their wanted list due to "lack of evidence."


>> But we cannot REALLY explain why people cannot consider 9.11 an inside job unless we look at the mass psychosis of how the "status quo opinion" is manipulated. People are deathly afraid of being ridiculed and losing credibility.

Sure, there are a LOT of conspiracy "theories" that are half-baked. There are a LOT of 9/11 "ideas" of how it could have happened that are complicated, or impossible. But you are left with the coverups, lies and the LACK of evidence.

Also -- there is ample evidence of MANIPULATION in the media and of government agencies to produce a theory that purposely leaves out the easiest explanation; "A demolition."



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Are you saying that the walls of WTC were stronger than the Pentagon's?
edit on 12-9-2011 by Konstantinos because: changed "are" to "were"



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Konstantinos
 


oh definitely not laughing "with" him. this is the same guy that thinks you can collapse 3 buildings with jet fuel from planes (only two planes by the way)(and all three fall uniformly)
this definitely shows i was trying to argue with a sophisticated individual

so much class
edit on 12-9-2011 by Venomilk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by axslinger
 


It wasnt 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete at the Pentagon. Not by a long shot.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Baa. Bhaaaa. Bha. Ram. Ewe?

That's sheeple for "How much are you getting paid?"




posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by spw184
 


I am 100% sure it was a terrorist attack too. The question is; which terrorists?



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jobeycool

Originally posted by Venomilk
reply to post by Jobeycool
 


how does this explain molten steel under all 3 towers?
explain plz
If you think gigiantic jets cannot bring down giant buildings when you crash them into them you are down right frightening stupid.


So typical of this website; ignore the question and attack with name-calling. I've already said it, jet-A burns at 500-600 degrees F (open-air burning, as in the WTC, which is without the assistance of force oxygen,etc). At that temperature steel maintains 95% of it's strength. The towers, and all other towers, are built with a degree of buffer or "overkll". If they expect it to have to support xxx tons, they design it to support xxx times 1.5, therefore even if you weakened the steel by 50%, it should have remained standing.

Source



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I really hate posting from my phone and not realizing I had made typos before my four hours are up.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Here you go OP I have some more for your list.

!0.The core columns were compromised to enable the obvious demolition exposed by videos of all three buildings that collapsed in NYC on 911.

11. No video or image can be trusted.( This really is a neutral fact ).

12.. The demolition of the twin towers had been previously planned in the late 80's.

13. Planes definetly hit the twin towers.

14.FBI has not revised their original 19 suspects even though they believe some used false IDs

15. Jane Stanley of the BBC was suddenly capable of forcasting future events. She reported that building 7 had also collapsed a full 15 minutes BEFORE it actually came crashing down.

16. The possibility of the planes being under remote control is widely known.

17. The truthers are the ones pointing out the B.S.




top topics



 
60
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join