What made you first suspect that these 9/11 conspiracy stories were false?

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
The muslims which supposedly attacked america were trained because of the initiative of America in the past and the pilots were trained not in caves in Afghanistan, but in America. On top of that Saudis were evacuated after some of their fellow citizens allegedly crashed planes in New York while all American flights were grounded. To top it off there wasnt any reaction towards Saudi Arabia, but the target was Afghanistan, where the goal to fight "Alquaeda" quickly evaporated and it became a war for control against the local Talibans and other native Afghan tribes.


What do you mean by "they attacked because of initiative of America in the past"? When the US gave support to the mujahadeen durign the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the hijackers were only, what, ten years old?




posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
A deliberately crafted thread by one of the many pathocrats on ATS.

You know full well there is no conspiracy theory, it's conspiracy fact, you are here to uphold the OS, hence why you created this thread. Hence why you have been here for 3 years upholding the OS good ol dave!

Someone made a shill thread earlier, that got removed, I see your join date was in that thread and references to you were in that thread, I cant say I'm suprised that a lot of other people noticed your behaviour.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Junkheap
Pretty much as soon as the first conspiracy theory came out. Nineteen terrorists hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings still remains the simplest explanation.

Also, no whistleblowers ever surfaced. If the government can keep 9/11 whistleblowers covered up, why can't they keep Fast and Furious ATF whistleblowers covered up?
edit on 30-9-2011 by Junkheap because: (no reason given)


So you're okay with the "official explanation" that these terrorists overpowered entire flight crews and forced them to open the door to the cabin with .... BOX CUTTERS ?

Oh no! Don't hurt me with that box cutter!



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
It was a number of claims that didn't fit, that didn't make sense, and the passage of time makes some of the claims even more obviously untrue.

For example, there was the notion that somehow the missing airplanes were not really crashed, but either drones or internal explosives had been used. If so, where were all the passengers?? Were the conspirators too finicky to have killed about 300 passengers but not at all hesitant about killing more than 3000 people in the WTC and Pentagon? Where were the passengers now? There was some lame story a year later than Barbara Olson, the wife of the US Solicitor, had been "arrested" at the Poland-Austria border with a suitcase full of Italian lira - why have lira after Italy had switched to the Euro? And where does Poland border Austria??

There were theories about the WTC being hit by drone aircraft. Except more than ten years later we've seen drones used in Afghanistan and they're nothing like the aircraft used in the WTC and Pentagon. Were drones ten years ago somehow MORE sophisticated and powerful than now? How is it such elaborate weapons were unleashed on the WTC and Pentagon, yet never used even for demonstrations previously? As for the internal explosives story, this would have required a regiment of demolition people to go through the two towers, planting explosives in probably 10% - 15% of the rooms (that's gotta be about a thousand rooms per tower) --- somehow nobody saw these explosives? somehow they were completely hidden and yet effective? and nobody saw the regiment of demolition men either?

And I had the advantage of knowing one of the eyewitnesses to the jet hitting the Pentagon. It definitely was a full-size jet, and it aimed at the exact center (side-to-side, top-to-bottom) of one side of the Pentagon.

Some other stories were just plain offensive. And some were just plain wrong (that the towers fell at free-fall speed or even faster --- actually considerably slower). Some of the stories seemed to be completely ignorant of NYC geography or history.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
A deliberately crafted thread by one of the many pathocrats on ATS.


I'm sensing that you learned a new word today.

These theorists of psychopathy have a lot to answer for. Especially given the growing number of people seeking to pathologise stuff they don't like. And then presumably stuff the criminal 'patients' in some modern gulag...



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies


Oh no! Don't hurt me with that box cutter!


I imagine that if I murdered someone in front of you by slitting their throat and then told you I would detonate a bomb if you tried anything you would do whatever I told you to do. In fact I suspect just the first part would be enough.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Imo if jet fuel produced the results of taking down both towers in less than 2 hours on 911,why do we need nuclear bombs?I mean really just make bombs out of jet fuel if they can do that kind of damage.
the os stinks in more ways than one.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


It wasn't a hoax, they were picked up by the feds. Also do you remember the feds who arrested Israeli 'art' students scoping out NYC prior to the attack.

WTC7 was far away from the impact site and there had to have been something else to bring it down.




Whatever the five Israelis did or did not do does not disprove the fact that eyewitnesses are saying one thing while those damned fool conspiracy web sites are falsely claiming they're saying something else


How do you know that the eyewitnesses are not false? There is video of the dancing Israelis
edit on 013030p://6America/ChicagoTue, 05 Jun 2012 13:53:13 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
The question for me should be: "what made you first suspect the 9/11 conspiracy stories were true?"

Like most, I was shocked, traumatized and living in a surreal environment for months and a few years after 9/11. I called into the Savage Nation, called Bin Laden a skunk haired evildoer, etc.

I was PISSED. I wanted to kill people. ME! Wanting people DEAD. Applauding efforts to kill others in barbaric acts in the name of "peace."
And I wanted the US to get over there and roll heads. I was 100% in favor of the Patriot Act and the DHS. I knew we needed those things to protect us from the "evildoers" on the planet. Evildoers who were/are out for you and me: US citizens because they hated us for some reason. Oh, I wholeheartedly bought that story hook, line and sinker. We need(ed) Big Bro (or BIG Sis) watching over their flocks to protect us.


Making us take our shoes off going thru the metal detectors at airports, now going thru nude body scanners. And people take it. Anyway, I'm going into rant mode so I will stop that.

Well, the feeling in me gradually changed I would say between the day of 9/11 and somewhere around 2005 or '06. Hmmmm about the time time that "weapons of mass destruction" were not being found. I started calling "The War on Terror" "The Moron Error." Although now I don't believe it was an error, in any way shape or form.

You see, I was living with my brother during most of this time and talk about a conspirator, he is one. I listened to his stories about whatever, Let's see: Bin Laden working with the CIA for one. I can't begin to remember them all, but even though I love my brother and don't believe for one second he would make up things, stories to fit some type of conspiracy, it was still hard for me to get past believing the OS and to start listening to him. Even he told me that for a few months after 9/11 he believed everything that was reported in the MSM, so he was hoodwinked also.

The stories and interesting facts (which I did check out for myself) slowly changed my mind. Things I looked up and read. Things my OWN MIND thought of. Everything just added up (for me) to something smelling rotten. Little things that just didn't make sense to me, or add up.

Plus, (some may scoff that's cool) my own mind, intuition, whatever you want to call it. I tend to put more trust in my own thoughts and feelings than the talking heads I see on TV (when I watch it which is hardly ever.)

Anyway, so yeah, at first I believed everything, I bought it all. Over the years, for a variety of reasons I no longer believe the OS and believe my feelings and thoughts. And yes, I have looked up and read and studied also so I base my beliefs on my own mind plus research,

Sorry if I have gone off subject but thanks for reading if you did.


Peace



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
There is video of the dancing Israelis


Well drag it out and show it to us.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Even IF all the conspiracy stories are false, it doesn't mean the OS is right.

OSers want you to think the OS is the only answer, and if the conspiracies are wrong then the OS must be right.

Nonsense. The whole OS imo hinges on the NIST hypothesis for collapse initiation of the towers, but no one can demonstrate sagging trusses pulling in columns.

Just one simple experiment would be all that is needed for them to prove their hypothesis once and for all.

Here is one done using a concrete building, that has core columns removed and weight added. Concrete is much weaker than steel, one OS tried to claim that concrete is better than steel in compression, which is not true, not even close. Notice the floors sag from the weight and lack of columns, but it doesn't pull in on the outer columns that now have much more force applies to them. Now the floors in the towers did not lose any load beating columns or have extra weight added to them. They were also sagging from heat, not still rigid as the concrete in the experiment were. There is no reason the WTC trusses should have applied any more force to the columns after sagging.



Now OSers will complain that it is a different structure, but miss the point that yes it is, and because it is it would be much more vulnerable to the effects of sagging floors on the structure than a steel structure would.

Dismissing 'conspiracy theories' is fine, but the OSers are denying physics. Physics is not conspiracy theory.


Originally posted by exponent
Steel is not infallible, and concrete will almost always do very much better in compression.

en.wikipedia.org...


In compression, steel is more than 10 times stronger than concrete, and in tension, more than 100 times stronger.

encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com...


edit on 6/5/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Hey ANOK. Do you remember that video posted recently where they placed that I beam across the pit of jet fuel. Did you notice how the concrete supports were pulled inward as the I beam sagged and failed.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Even IF all the conspiracy stories are false, it doesn't mean the OS is right.

OSers want you to think the OS is the only answer, and if the conspiracies are wrong then the OS must be right.


This lie isn't even remotely believable and it only makes your own credibility suffer from attempting to pass it off. Lee Hamilton openly admits the 9/11 commission report is a first draft and that more information will almost certainly be forthcoming, while the NIST report said on page one that the report is an educated guess and shouldn't be regarded as canonical.

Tell me something, in all honesty- if you serously believe the "OS'ers have been suckered by propaganda" then why are the truthers the ones who have to rely on propaganda to spread false information about their opponents like this?



Here is one done using a concrete building, that has core columns removed and weight added. Concrete is much weaker than steel, one OS tried to claim that concrete is better than steel in compression, which is not true, not even close. Notice the floors sag from the weight and lack of columns, but it doesn't pull in on the outer columns that now have much more force applies to them. Now the floors in the towers did not lose any load beating columns or have extra weight added to them. They were also sagging from heat, not still rigid as the concrete in the experiment were. There is no reason the WTC trusses should have applied any more force to the columns after sagging.


Then would you mind terribly explaining how this core column wound up in the condition it's in? This is one of the recovered pieces of WTC steel kept at the hanger in JFK-



Barring the retarded "it was planted by sinister secret agents" excuse being thrown around with the same mindless lack of thought that monkeys use while throwing their poo at each other , I'm necessarily going to need to believe this was bent from the immense forces from the collapse.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
There are a lot of things we probably still don't know or understand about the background and reasons why 9/11 happened the way it did and the Official Story has a number of questionable explanations.

A long time ago I read a lot of the conspiracy theories and was entirely convinced there was something to them. Where is the proof an airliner hit the Pentagon? The collapse of the Twin Towers look like explosives. And what really happened to Flight 93 and WTC7.

But there lies the real problem with 9/11 conspiracies. This is one instance where looking at the minute details does not give any real clarity. People have become so obsessed with the finer points of how steel can be made to melt with burning aircraft fuel and all those other silly points that they have failed to address how the US Government would pull off and keep secret such a huge plot but still be so incompetent to make a number of glaring mistakes if the conspiracies really were true.

The conspiracy story depends on picking at bits but never explaining the conspiracy as a whole picture.

According to the unofficial story :

Al Qaeda hijacked 4 jets. Two of them hit their targets, but bombs were placed in the Twin Towers (by Black Ops). Now surely if there were explosives in the WTC then this could easily have been blamed on Al Qaeda by a conspiratorial US government. Why leave this calculated move open to accusations of an inside job. If explosives were placed in the WTC and WTC7 then simply let investigations report it as part of the terrorist plot.

The Pentagon was hit by a missile/drone/truck bomb etc. So why would this not be linked to Al Qaeda. Why the need for for another hijacked airliner which then disappears off radar and everyone onboard simply vanishes.

Flight 93 goes meandering across Pennsylvania but was shot down by the USAF. Well if it was that would actually show that USAF was actually doing it's job by then wouldn't it?

I do think that the United States took advantage of the aftermath of 9/11 but I have never seen anyone explain exactly what the "conpsiracy plot " is as a whole concept.

Maybe someone can enlighten me.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWILITE22
Imo if jet fuel produced the results of taking down both towers in less than 2 hours on 911,why do we need nuclear bombs?I mean really just make bombs out of jet fuel if they can do that kind of damage.
the os stinks in more ways than one.



I just can't believe this kind of logic, what about the damage caused not just the fires, then the increasing load on failing components then the HUGE dynamic load of the floors above impact falling on the floors below.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


What about the DYNAMIC loads are you willing to catch the weight dropped 12ft yet Anok



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


WTC7 was far away from the impact site and there had to have been something else to bring it down.




Sorry but have you been in a coma





Captain Chris Boyle Engine 94 - 18 years Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.


Care to comment



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by TWILITE22
Imo if jet fuel produced the results of taking down both towers in less than 2 hours on 911,why do we need nuclear bombs?I mean really just make bombs out of jet fuel if they can do that kind of damage.
the os stinks in more ways than one.



I just can't believe this kind of logic, what about the damage caused not just the fires, then the increasing load on failing components then the HUGE dynamic load of the floors above impact falling on the floors below.
didn't the "fires"cause the failing components?It's not my kind of logic you should worry about.
I find it incredible that of all the people that believe the os,not one of you guys have even one question,I find very strange that the die hard believers have taken 911 and put it in a box,every piece fits for you guys,not one question,nothing is suspicious and that is what you should call unbelievable.
Magic jet fuel...sure



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWILITE22
didn't the "fires"cause the failing components?It's not my kind of logic you should worry about.
I find it incredible that of all the people that believe the os,not one of you guys have even one question,I find very strange that the die hard believers have taken 911 and put it in a box,every piece fits for you guys,not one question,nothing is suspicious and that is what you should call unbelievable.
Magic jet fuel...sure


What an extraordinary asssertion. I can't think of one person who is entirely unquestioning of the "OS". Can you name one?



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TWILITE22
didn't the "fires"cause the failing components?It's not my kind of logic you should worry about.
I find it incredible that of all the people that believe the os,not one of you guys have even one question,I find very strange that the die hard believers have taken 911 and put it in a box,every piece fits for you guys,not one question,nothing is suspicious and that is what you should call unbelievable.
Magic jet fuel...sure


What an extraordinary asssertion. I can't think of one person who is entirely unquestioning of the "OS". Can you name one?
I would say most of the people that you can set your watch to,race to all 911 thread and defend the os to the death?ring any bells?I don't reply in these threads normally because I see how they are relentlessly attack by the usual suspects.It's all a big game and I have better things going for myself than to argue with people that have an agenda.
Some people enjoy going around in circles,I'm not one of them.





top topics
 
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join