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.

 

U watch -- U consider -- U explain

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
The short answer to this question is ..... no.

If I could show you an example of such an event, it would not have been successful, would it?


In that case, your conspiracy claims are nothing but circular logic, in that you're creating a claim and then rephrasing the claim in different terms in order to explain itself.

Suppose I say the towers were destroyed by Unicorn farts. Farting unicorns are quite explosive, and whenever anyone sees a unicorn, the unicorn farts and and the explosion kills the witness. Therefore, if a unicorn was in the building, people in the building would necessarily see the unicorn which irrefutably means the unicorn would fart, causing an explosion and destroying the building, as well as kill off whoever saw the unicorn. The very fact that noone saw a unicorn in the towers or can document that unicorn farts destroyed the towers is evidence that that a unicorn farted because the absense of witnesses to farting unicorns is one of the characteristics of farting unicorns. It logically explains why the buildings were destroyed and it logically explains the lack of evidence, so it's proof that the towers were deatroyed by unicorn farts.

...except that it's all BS. I have zero proof that unicorns exist so I cannot use this as a basis to state unicorn farts are explosive, which means I certainly can't use that to say unicorn farts desrtoyed the towers. YOU have zero proof that large groups of people can ever sneak into any occupied building and perform any building-wide projects without being noticed, so you cannot use this as a basis to state large groups of people can secretly plant concealed controlled demolitions in any occupied building without being noticed, and you certainly cannot use that to say the towers were destroyed by people sneaking in and planting concealed controlled demolitions without being noticed. Above all, you can't say all the witnesses to the secret controlled demolitions were killed by the secret controlled demolitions any more than I can say all the witnesses to the unicorns were killed by the exploding unicorn farts because it's using a logical fallacy to create another logical fallacy.

Se how logic and critical analysis works?


As far as the "mistaken identity". Most of the visas required for these people to enter the US were issued through the US consulate in Jedda. They had to have some identification to show who they were, but I still think they were identified rather quickly after the planes struck the buildings. Yet there are these people living in the middle east with the same names and the same faces which match up with these visas. I don't know just what constitutes "mistaken identity" but I do feel that something is not quite right.


The reason why they were identified quickly is obvious- they knew right away thy were hijacked planes so the first thing the Feds did was to pull the passenger lists to see who was aboard, so they can try to identify the suspects. When they see a list of names like "Joe Smith", "Randy Jones", "Mohammed Atta", and "Betty Green" which name do YOU think stands out like a sore thumb?




posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



There is also the lingering question of the pool of molten metal which was present under the rubble of each of the three buildings which collapsed into their own foot prints.


Matter is made of one of three things, liquid, gas or solid. At different times, depending on the circumstances involved, that matter can be transformed into one of the other properties. Hence, water become ice when frozen, and solids melt under heat.

So molten metal should really be called the liquid formerly known as solid, does what all liquids do, it follows the path to the lowest point.How many days was the WTC smoldering? Hmm, so there was molten metal found in pools under the rubble. Where else do you expect to find it?

They have taken the most basic concepts and twisted the words to get people to fall for it. Dylan Avery did that very thing, he made a lot of money twisting words and then recanted. Not only did he twist words, he left information out, asked a question for you to supply the answer to the non-evidence.

Here is a fun video that sort of gives you the idea of what liquid does....from Bruce Lee...
www.youtube.com...

We can all agree that water is a liquid under normal circumstances. Molten metal become so after heat, that much we can all agree on as well.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by Varemia
 



One thing that bothered me on 9/11 as I watched the TV was Giuliani. I even felt he was coached and was being 'managed' that day as he trotted through the street. Much has been typed on here about that terrorist passport, mostly about how paper and plastic is stronger than a black box, not so much about what group actually found it laying in the street... yeah, not so much.


I think Rudy Guiliani had a very tough job to do. The buildings in his city were just attacked and it was better for him as a leader to show little emotion. His job was to first and foremost find as many people alive as they could.
People know that when a first responder, fireman or police officer has to respond to an event they never show emotion until it is over with. He was being very careful because this event was so tragic.

Give him a break, he was doing simply what every other mayor or governor would do.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





Se how logic and critical analysis works?


I don't think I have witnessed so much effort put into proving a negative in a long time.

I have long since stopped trying to explain logic to anyone. They either have it and know how to use it or they don't.




The reason why they were identified quickly is obvious- they knew right away thy were hijacked planes so the first thing the Feds did was to pull the passenger lists to see who was aboard, so they can try to identify the suspects. When they see a list of names like "Joe Smith", "Randy Jones", "Mohammed Atta", and "Betty Green" which name do YOU think stands out like a sore thumb?

I have looked over the "supposed" passenger lists form all the flights which were highjacked that day, and I do not remember seeing Mohammed Atta on any of them. I don't think I saw any other "arabic" names on them either.

As I have said I am , and will continue to ,ask questions about the events of 9/11 until the explainations make sense to me. I am well aware that I may not be as intellegent or as sophistacated as a lot of other people, but I am an American and it is my right, no my duty, to ask questions about things I do not understand.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 





So molten metal should really be called the liquid formerly known as solid, does what all liquids do, it follows the path to the lowest point.How many days was the WTC smoldering? Hmm, so there was molten metal found in pools under the rubble. Where else do you expect to find it?


Well, when your right, your right.

The questions I have concerns the source of heat which kept the metal in a liquid state after the initial fires were extinguished. All heat is exothermic. If a material is not continually heated by some source it will begin to cool. And in the case of metals, solidify. Under normal circumstances the metal should have become a large chunk within hours, if not minutes, after the dust settled. But it did not. WHY.




They have taken the most basic concepts and twisted the words to get people to fall for it. Dylan Avery did that very thing, he made a lot of money twisting words and then recanted. Not only did he twist words, he left information out, asked a question for you to supply the answer to the non-evidence.


As the videos by Dylan Avery; I have never watched them. I could not see exchanging one pile of BS for another.

It may take me longer, I would much rather "hash out" all the information I can get on my own in order to find my own conclusions, rather than blindly accept what someone else tells me I should believe.

I may never learn the "real truth" entirely, but I will be much better satisfied with what little I do find. This is why I reject being catagorized as a "truther". I prefer the tittle of questioner.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by WarminIndy
 







The questions I have concerns the source of heat which kept the metal in a liquid state after the initial fires were extinguished. All heat is exothermic. If a material is not continually heated by some source it will begin to cool. And in the case of metals, solidify. Under normal circumstances the metal should have become a large chunk within hours, if not minutes, after the dust settled. But it did not. WHY.


The rubble burned for four months.

whatreallyhappened.com...

And that article uses the same information for thermite, even though thermite has been debunked. That is part of the point I have been making.



As the videos by Dylan Avery; I have never watched them. I could not see exchanging one pile of BS for another.

It may take me longer, I would much rather "hash out" all the information I can get on my own in order to find my own conclusions, rather than blindly accept what someone else tells me I should believe.

I may never learn the "real truth" entirely, but I will be much better satisfied with what little I do find. This is why I reject being catagorized as a "truther". I prefer the tittle of questioner.



And to be a questioner, you must also question the very sources who created the many theories and then ask yourself why they would even twist facts and leave out pertinent information. Every time an "expert" throws out another theory, people jump on because to them it supports something in them to believe something or anything against the very government that affords them freedom to think however they want. Dylan Avery managed simply to take conspiracy theories to make a movie from, in turn feeding the theorists with the same re-manufactured and re-spun lies.

When people saw the planes hit the buildings, that is exactly what the world witnessed. While the searchers were going through the rubble to find victims, conspiracy theorists immediately told the world it did not happen. So we have the OS that was witnessed, it is the theories that need questioned. Why would any conspiracy theorist do this? The answer is because they don't want to know the truth of what they saw. It is too hard for them to accept there are people in the world who hate us simply because we are American.

Today it was reported that an Iranian actress is to get one year in prison and 90 lashes simply for being in a film that exposes how the Iranian government does that very thing. Has Michael Moore faced that from the US government? Has that happened to any conspiracy theorist? No, even though the conspiracy theorists will tell us that 9/11 was created to take our freedoms away.

We don't have to agree with actions our government takes, but we should never just assume what they are telling us is wrong.
edit on 10/10/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   


We don't have to agree with actions our government takes, but we should never just assume what they are telling us is wrong.


While I appreciate your reinforcing many of my statements, I do not remember saying who I thought was right or wrong.

I did make a statement to the effect of "not trading one line of BS for another."

It is my position to question everything until I find enough information which makes sense to me. It is my privlage to disagree with whomever and whatever I please. Just ask my wife.
edit on 10-10-2011 by hdutton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


There are lots of us "questioners" out here (like you word). And fortunately we don't easily get derailed by fanatics or agents whose sole purpose is to ridicule us with clever and repeated propaganda to try to make us feel foolish for asking questions.

Like this guy from Indiana that obsesses over Dylan Avery and Loose Change. I watched that video for the first time recently, and was sorely disappointed in the hack job that it was. But Mr. Indiana would like everyone reading these 911 threads to leave thinking that since some Hack that made a video said a bunch of misleading things about 911 that that makes all questioners of 911 hacks. He must have a secret crush on Dylan Avery or something since he loves to talk about him to everyone. Even people like me that had to google Avery to even know who he was talking about.

The OS'rs seem to be the most diluded bunch on these 911 threads. They never look at anything from a new angle,
but they throw insults at those that do. Not a strong sign of intelligence, but certainly a strong sign of a small paycheck.

Carry on Questioners!



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
There you go again, Dave. I'm certain that without knowing the specific gravity of unicorn farts, your point cannot be proven. Personally, I don't know where we could find a unicorn to clear this up, do you?



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by hdutton
 



The OS'rs seem to be the most diluded bunch on these 911 threads. They never look at anything from a new angle,
but they throw insults at those that do. Not a strong sign of intelligence, but certainly a strong sign of a small paycheck.

Carry on Questioners!




Actually I am a woman. What led you to think I was a man? And I never insulted people, I merely asked them to question the theories. I stood up for what I know and never insulted anyone. If you took it as an insult, maybe I just insulted the theories.

And the theories proposed by Dylan Avery has been every theory out there. So even if you have not heard of him you have still ascribed to his theories.And that is not research to not question the source of the theories either. But go ahead and ask every conspiracy theorist who has been on here since 9/11 if they know who Dylan Avery is. Chances are, the bulk of them telling you the theories got their information from Dylan Avery.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Is it a new theory that people who believe the OS are being paid to believe it? Pretty interesting theory there, I wonder who made it up.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Is it a new theory that people who believe the OS are being paid to believe it? Pretty interesting theory there, I wonder who made it up.


Hardly new and entirely logical when facts are ignored.

The thing about truth is that it stands on its own. The thing about lies is that they always need subsequent lies to keep them viable. So the real question is why the need to lie in the first place? Perhaps there is no truth that can keep the lie alive? ... just like there is no lie that can keep truth from coming out.

So in answer to your question, my question is why are so many still so naive or ignorant of what truth is when there is more than enough subsequent evidence (that the pros use avoidance of) to make anyone question the lies? And the obvious answer is that there are paid liars who have sold their very souls to keep the lies alive


Google Video Link


A number of videos have yet to surface, an obvious missing one is the dancing Mossad agents that were filming... but then that is also more smoke up your collective asses.

So getting back to the linked video the question was raised that a matching sample for DNA matching was needed and yet my question is how is it that mere days later (with the crime scene being sanitized of evidence) 19 Arabs were identified positively by DNA matching (see the vid and hear it for yourself) when years later only 53% of the murder victims had been identified?

www.cbsnews.com...

but then the sounds of explosions can be clearly heard and yet it is still a big IF as to what brought the towers down?


Google Video Link


The pros here will tell us that the "fireproofing" asbestos was knocked off the steel beams and the fire weakened the beams that initiated a pancake collapse... and yet that is intellectually dishonest (if you remember that thread) because of simple logic. Steel doesn't burn and needs no fireproofing (but using the word fire lends it credibility) but what it was there for was something that seems to escape logic by the nay-sayers... that steel conducts heat (like a heat sink) as well as cold. On a winter day if the cold was conducted throughout a structure the cold of the steel in contrast to the ambient air temperature would cause water vapor to condense and rust the steel. That is why a thermal barrier is needed.

But that doesn't fit the lies does it?

So we have the sound of explosions that didn't happen, tiny bone fragments of what was once people blown to smithereens and surrounding rooftops, subsequent lies by the MSM to keep the lie being sold in the public realm, and what is worse, a group that parades the half-truths like they are the burning bush and imbued with eternal wisdom.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


You sir, are a liar and I'm calling you out. If you don't know you are lying, then you are unwittingly spreading false information.

Yes, steel does not burn, but it weakens when heated.

kbscoatingaustralia.blogspot.com...

Don't pretend to know the truth when really you are just regurgitating spoon-fed lies.

Edit: www.destefanoassociates.com...

Nothing here about its purpose being insulation...
edit on 10-10-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


You sir, are a liar and I'm calling you out. If you don't know you are lying, then you are unwittingly spreading false information.

Yes, steel does not burn, but it weakens when heated.

kbscoatingaustralia.blogspot.com...

Don't pretend to know the truth when really you are just regurgitating spoon-fed lies.


and at what temperature does it become molten?

seems like I hit a sore spot in your psyche... too close to the truth perhaps? Call me a liar and try to ignore the proof presented, typical of your methodology



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic

and at what temperature does it become molten?

seems like I hit a sore spot in your psyche... too close to the truth perhaps? Call me a liar and try to ignore the proof presented, typical of your methodology


And where was this molten metal? It was nowhere in the tower before collapse. Only weeks afterward after the heat had been smoldering. Ever heard of gradual heating?

It's not that you hit a soft spot. It's that I have no tolerance for the spreading of ignorance. I am a member of ATS, and I will deny ignorance as much as possible!



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by anoncoholic

and at what temperature does it become molten?

seems like I hit a sore spot in your psyche... too close to the truth perhaps? Call me a liar and try to ignore the proof presented, typical of your methodology


And where was this molten metal? It was nowhere in the tower before collapse. Only weeks afterward after the heat had been smoldering. Ever heard of gradual heating?

It's not that you hit a soft spot. It's that I have no tolerance for the spreading of ignorance. I am a member of ATS, and I will deny ignorance as much as possible!


as I have no tolerance for liars. I suppose all those vids with molten steel pouring down the side of the towers was just a lensflare or sundog? I suppose the molten core of the earth just happened to bubble up on 911 too just like all the other fallacy's you would have us buy into?

If you are the representative of the will of ATS perhaps I am in the wrong venue..., I thought deny ignorance meant expose it rather than close the blinds



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by anoncoholic

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by anoncoholic

and at what temperature does it become molten?

seems like I hit a sore spot in your psyche... too close to the truth perhaps? Call me a liar and try to ignore the proof presented, typical of your methodology


And where was this molten metal? It was nowhere in the tower before collapse. Only weeks afterward after the heat had been smoldering. Ever heard of gradual heating?

It's not that you hit a soft spot. It's that I have no tolerance for the spreading of ignorance. I am a member of ATS, and I will deny ignorance as much as possible!


as I have no tolerance for liars. I suppose all those vids with molten steel pouring down the side of the towers was just a lensflare or sundog? I suppose the molten core of the earth just happened to bubble up on 911 too just like all the other fallacy's you would have us buy into?

If you are the representative of the will of ATS perhaps I am in the wrong venue..., I thought deny ignorance meant expose it rather than close the blinds



There were lead batteries and aluminum there, both of which have very low melting points... Have you not been here long or something? I mean, I know you're probably in it for the stars, but seriously, I'm talking about facts.

It's almost depressing how attacked I get for pointing out what is really there.

Now, if you need proof, I could show you that there was a floor full of batteries right where the fire was in the towers. But, let me guess. You'll think it's molten steel anyway. How typical... aaaand I'm bored with this crap again. ATS has failed me.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Yes, it would be a good idea if you showed us these batteries and aluminum. Got a picture?



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by anoncoholic

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by anoncoholic

and at what temperature does it become molten?

seems like I hit a sore spot in your psyche... too close to the truth perhaps? Call me a liar and try to ignore the proof presented, typical of your methodology


And where was this molten metal? It was nowhere in the tower before collapse. Only weeks afterward after the heat had been smoldering. Ever heard of gradual heating?

It's not that you hit a soft spot. It's that I have no tolerance for the spreading of ignorance. I am a member of ATS, and I will deny ignorance as much as possible!


as I have no tolerance for liars. I suppose all those vids with molten steel pouring down the side of the towers was just a lensflare or sundog? I suppose the molten core of the earth just happened to bubble up on 911 too just like all the other fallacy's you would have us buy into?

If you are the representative of the will of ATS perhaps I am in the wrong venue..., I thought deny ignorance meant expose it rather than close the blinds



There were lead batteries and aluminum there, both of which have very low melting points... Have you not been here long or something? I mean, I know you're probably in it for the stars, but seriously, I'm talking about facts.

It's almost depressing how attacked I get for pointing out what is really there.

Now, if you need proof, I could show you that there was a floor full of batteries right where the fire was in the towers. But, let me guess. You'll think it's molten steel anyway. How typical... aaaand I'm bored with this crap again. ATS has failed me.


so predictable. Bring in any illusion to detract the view from the issue . Make it all about me or yourself rather than face the evidence with reasoning because there is no reasoning that can explain the lies that are without a doubt lies and you can tell they are lies by the a-holes simple reaction to being caught in them.

Yet you would post a link from a site that was put up in 2010 that is in business selling insulation. How low a person will sink is something that never surprises me. Go ahead, run away now that you see just how damaging the truth is... maybe the others here won't care anyway, about either of us because I am past that point where I should explain logic and reality to you.

You did your job on keeping the lies alive as best you could, run along now... as surely as I will close my browser and wash my hands of all of it. Nothing anyone says will ever change the simple fact that greed has been in control and your greed apparently means more to you than justice for the millions dead since 911 or the 3 wars we are mired in thanks to the lying of sociopaths who have you so enamored of them that you even deny your very future for.

yes, everyone has their own flavor of truth and unfortunately for the liars, the real truth is self evident and needs no fairy tale to reenforce it. See what your handlers have to say about burying the links provided in my earlier post rather than draw attention to it. All you are doing is painting the peoples radar as to how much a liar will deny truth by any means possible.
edit on 10-10-2011 by anoncoholic because: typo's



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


You must be a troll.

Batteries on the 81st floor:
11-settembre.blogspot.com...

South tower impact was from 78-82:
911review.com...

Now stop being obtuse. This has been a really crappy day so far, and it sucks having to explain this grade-school bullcrap.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join