I just learned something...

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Please teach me how to add nothing to a thread, even after several posts. Oh wait, you just did!
Second line not needed when others can write 15 lines of NOTHING AT ALL : )


Hey OP, thanks for sharing. Whatever happens, you are appreciated by others.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Wizayne because: I wanted to formally accuse NY of murder.




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


"those damned fool conspiracy web sites"
Thats a term I've seen you use at least 100 times. Do you mind if I de-value everything you do using vague statements such as yours?

What's your point? Can't this person just share info with others and not get slammed by (fill in the blank) folks like you discreditting them before they can even begin to have a discussion?

I think it's great that this person shared an experience they had. I await further details. Thanks OP.

Also, is there a way to not have certain members posts show up when you read threads they have posted in? Dave is first on the shun list. Shame on you Dave.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
old news.

larry silverstein in interview admitting that it was pulled.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by behindthescenes
 


that was no carrot you dangled, it was a rock. Please put in the title of this thread that it is full of suspense and nothing more.


Well, okay. Again for many of you, WTC7 demolition is a foregone conclusion. For me, who accepted the report, and being told by someone with insider's knowledge an opposite story is, frankly, a mind blow.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by behindthescenes
 


I can very much understand your reaction, it is quite a shock to wake up and realise that what you once trusted and believed is not all that it appears. This is the main video that done it for me with WTC 7.



It does put the whole terrorist with box cutter theory in serious doubt when buildings are getting demolished at the same time.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by behindthescenes
 


I can very much understand your reaction, it is quite a shock to wake up and realise that what you once trusted and believed is not all that it appears. This is the main video that done it for me with WTC 7.



It does put the whole terrorist with box cutter theory in serious doubt when buildings are getting demolished at the same time.


Conspiracies are encouraged and if the same amount of time without consequences
passes for 9/11 as it did for JFK, then all is well for some.
I see clearly that this video is CGI fakery and has no bearing on the real events.
This little WTC7 rabbit hole was burrowed early on with silverstines 'pull it'
'slip of the tongue'.
The operation northwoods document was declassified in April 2001.
Fakery was a large consideration, and that was in the 1960's.

Go where you will, but steer clear of the whole notion of fakery.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 




Go where you will, but steer clear of the whole notion of fakery.


Looks like I got the wrong planet then, maybe next time.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
 
You see, I just read the entire thread ,and I didn't get that, (above Quote)

I read a thread where the OP says he stumbled upon something, imploding towers, But he wanted to talk again to get more information.


Od course you don't get that. None of you truthers get that. You're so high on endorphins sniffing out the "secret world of conspiracies and coverups" and your heads are so far up in the clouds that you don't comprehend what the heck you're saying half the time.

In the real world, the people involved in 9/11 aren't some shadowy unknown entities or a bunch of disembodied brains sitting in a vat of fluid in some secret laboratory somewhere. They were all real people like you and me, and they were all intimately involved in the events. NYC firefighters were specifically there at WTC 7 trying to put out the fires and the NYPD were there to keep security and rescue people who were in trouble. People like Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden were specifically there at WTC 7 and specifically said the fires in WTC 7 were causing damage to the structure, and people like Barry Jennings was specifically in the building when the north tower collapsed and specifically admitted emergency personnel entered the building to rescue him. That doesn't even go into the engineers in NIST who attempted to explain how the building collapsed. Whether you have the courage to admit this or not, you are necessarily accusing all these people of committing conspiracy to secretly demolish the buildings and/or committing conspiracy by contributing to the coverup...especially when the OP attempts to claim it was "common knowledge".

Who exactly was this "common knowledge" to when there isn't a single person who was physically there who knows anything about it? Please, explain this to me in your own words.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizayne
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


"those damned fool conspiracy web sites"
Thats a term I've seen you use at least 100 times. Do you mind if I de-value everything you do using vague statements such as yours?

What's your point? Can't this person just share info with others and not get slammed by (fill in the blank) folks like you discreditting them before they can even begin to have a discussion?


What's my point? For one thing, you conspiracy truthers seem to be openly forgiving of information that can never be corroborated (I.E. "an anonymous insider gave us unreleased information from classified sources") whenever it confirms what you want to believe, and yet you insist on examining every nut, bolt, and shoelace of anything you disagree with..and even when there's overwhelming evidence you people will still find some excuse for why you shouldn't have to believe it. I've even seen one person here claim the towers were really fake buildings! Either you truthers are so gullible that you'll believe any ridiculous thing you read on the internet, or, you have an agenda to propagate this abject paranoia regardless of what the facts are.

For another, "It was common knowledge that..." is a buzzword I've seen those damned fool conspiracy web sites use time after time to justify some accusation they can't prove otherwise (I.E. it was common knowledge the Pentgon had antiaircraft batteries"). True to form, the only one who seems to know anything about this "common knowledge" is this mysterious inside source the OP doesn't want to reveal.

You're telling me you don't see the least thing irregular about any of this?


Also, is there a way to not have certain members posts show up when you read threads they have posted in?


Yes. It's called censorship. You won't find that here because ATS knows that it's lies and falsehood, and never the truth, that needs to be deathly afraid of honest critique.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
 
You see, I just read the entire thread ,and I didn't get that, (above Quote)

I read a thread where the OP says he stumbled upon something, imploding towers, But he wanted to talk again to get more information.

Who exactly was this "common knowledge" to when there isn't a single person who was physically there who knows anything about it? Please, explain this to me in your own words.


I never said it was "common knowledge," only that my source told me about the demolition of WTC7 in an off-handed way as though it was common knowledge. THat's what I meant.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Wizayne
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


"those damned fool conspiracy web sites"
Thats a term I've seen you use at least 100 times. Do you mind if I de-value everything you do using vague statements such as yours?

What's your point? Can't this person just share info with others and not get slammed by (fill in the blank) folks like you discreditting them before they can even begin to have a discussion?


What's my point? For one thing, you conspiracy truthers seem to be openly forgiving of information that can never be corroborated (I.E. "an anonymous insider gave us unreleased information from classified sources") whenever it confirms what you want to believe, and yet you insist on examining every nut, bolt, and shoelace of anything you disagree with..and even when there's overwhelming evidence you people will still find some excuse for why you shouldn't have to believe it. I've even seen one person here claim the towers were really fake buildings! Either you truthers are so gullible that you'll believe any ridiculous thing you read on the internet, or, you have an agenda to propagate this abject paranoia regardless of what the facts are.


Well cross fingers that my "source" is willing to go on the record and provide the documents he says he has. If so, I'll advance it here, but I will be writing a story about it for another publication...



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by behindthescenes
 
Thanks for making it so easy for us. We have already traced your post and will be sending a team to your house shortly.

Please also understand, that since you have disclosed secret info on the web, we are not to happy. We will use whatever means necessary to extract the name of your "friend" from you. See you soon!



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by behindthescenes
 
Thanks for making it so easy for us. We have already traced your post and will be sending a team to your house shortly.

Please also understand, that since you have disclosed secret info on the web, we are not to happy. We will use whatever means necessary to extract the name of your "friend" from you. See you soon!

If thats you in the Av, I have a ton of inside information.




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedom12
reply to post by behindthescenes
 
Thanks for making it so easy for us. We have already traced your post and will be sending a team to your house shortly.

Please also understand, that since you have disclosed secret info on the web, we are not to happy. We will use whatever means necessary to extract the name of your "friend" from you. See you soon!


If that is you in that profile picture, then you're more than welcome to come here and ...ahem...torture me for the info....



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by behindthescenes
 


If WTC 7 was demolished "because the damage was too great" why be secretive about it ?

And how was this demolition carried out ? We know the firefighters were pulled back early afternoon because the building had uncontrolled fires and was threatening to collapse. So who risked their lives going in there to rig it for cd while it was on fire, leaning and bulging ?



The NIST report doesn't acknowledge any long-happening leaning or bulging. Some may have believed it, yes. It may even be true. But it remains officially unacknowledged and unconfirmed.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Duplicate post deleted - SC
edit on 28-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by behindthescenes
 


If WTC 7 was demolished "because the damage was too great" why be secretive about it ?

And how was this demolition carried out ? We know the firefighters were pulled back early afternoon because the building had uncontrolled fires and was threatening to collapse. So who risked their lives going in there to rig it for cd while it was on fire, leaning and bulging ?



The NIST report doesn't acknowledge any long-happening leaning or bulging. Some may have believed it, yes. It may even be true. But it remains officially unacknowledged and unconfirmed.


I was persuaded by eyewitness firefighter evidence such as this :-

www.oocities.org...



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I think the OP got his WTC numbers confused. It is a well known fact that some buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. For example, WTC- 6 was brought down by C.D. using AMEC Construction. (they weaked the building further and used cables to pull it.


WTC- 5 was also demolished by January 2002 - The same way WTC 6 and also WTC -4 were. So, yes truthers, 3 buildings from the WTC complex were taken down via controlled demolition. They were not 1,2 or 7. Sorry that you or your friend got the building number wrong.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
I was persuaded by eyewitness firefighter evidence such as this :-

www.oocities.org...


But NIST wasn't.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join