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.

 

Your 9/11 truth?

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by windsorblue
2 days later and still nothing....any takers here up for a polite discussion on the subject?


In the rare case that these conspiracy proponents ever attempted to give me a reasonable answer to this, it usually revolved around the belief the conspiracy really isn't anywhere near that convoluted and all these Rube Goldberg schemes are really just disinformation released by whatever boogeyman it is that's behind the conspiracy plot to discredit the movement as a whole. People who believe the "controlled demolitions" story accuse Judy Wood and her "lasers from otuer space" claims of being a disinformation agent, while Judy Wood and her bunch accuse Alex Jones and his "armies of Satan worshippers claims of doing the same thing. Of course THIS doesn't make any sense because regardless of which conspiracy it is they subscribe to, there necessarily has to be a whole back story of layers upon layers of OTHER conspiracies for their own conspiracy to even exist.

-HOW did they get all these explosives into the building without being seen? The boogeyman sent sinister secret agents to infiltrate WTC security

-WHY doesn't a single piece of video show any explosives going off? The boogeyman infiltrated every news agency in the world and altered every piece of video in existance to erase all the blatant explosives flashes

-WHY didn't anyone find even a microbe of any evidence of sabotage during the cleanup of ground zero? The boogeyman made sure all the workmen cleaning up ground zero were their own secret agents.

-WHY do photos of WTC steel show massive bending and snapping like twigs, rather than melted? The boogeyman manufactured the steel and/or the photographs, and everyone who physically saw the steel is a secret agent.

-WHY isn't there a single whistleblower coming forward to name names, reveal timetables, etc the way every OTHER conspiracy was exposed? They send secret agents to hunt down the other secret agents.

...then they turn around and complain the reason why it sounds convoluted is becuase the boogeyman is releasing disinformation to make them look bad! I said it before and I'll say it again- if these conspiracy people were to every hold their own conspiracy theories up to the same stringent level of critical analysis they do with the 9/11 Commission report, they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists, for very long.




posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by windsorblue
2 days later and still nothing....any takers here up for a polite discussion on the subject?


In the rare case that these conspiracy proponents ever attempted to give me a reasonable answer to this,

Your unreasonable defence of the official story makes you unable to recognize what is "reasonable".

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
-HOW did they get all these explosives into the building without being seen? The boogeyman sent sinister secret agents to infiltrate WTC security

If you were more informed about the events of 9/11, you would have been familiar with the fact reported by Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc., that the weekend before the 9/11 WTC demolition, all power was shut down to install "computer cables." No one was allowed inside and all security cameras and alarms had no power for 30 hours. Engineers were coming and going all the time, Forbes said, and there was no security in the towers. Now, computer cables don't connect with building electricity, so the need to turn off and close both towers to do so is indicative of another motive, like planting charges without alarms and video surveillance. Marvin Bush, brother to President George and Jeb, was a principal in Securacom, which was in charge of security for the World Trade Center. In other words, we have highly reliable witnesses who reported suspicious acitivity a few days before 9/11. Get yourself informed. It might make your sarcasm more effective, although I doubt it.
web.archive.org...:/69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
-WHY doesn't a single piece of video show any explosives going off?

Oh, but of course many do. You just turn a mental blind eye to all the evidence of squibs going off dozens of floors below the level of demolition and to the flashes of light from detonation charges erupting that are visible in slowed-down videos as this level descends, as well as to the violent, horizontal expulsion of material with far more force than simple dropping under the force of gravity can explain.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
-WHY didn't anyone find even a microbe of any evidence of sabotage during the cleanup of ground zero? The boogeyman made sure all the workmen cleaning up ground zero were their own secret agents.

Well, even if they had, do you REALLY think YOU or the general public would have heard about it? LOL! Talk about a silly argument! Running out of arguments, are you, after all these years? They always were poor, but this is getting to the bottom of the barrel, I must say!

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
-WHY do photos of WTC steel show massive bending and snapping like twigs, rather than melted? The boogeyman manufactured the steel and/or the photographs, and everyone who physically saw the steel is a secret agent.

Your sarcasm would be more effective if you used it with strong arguments. But you never do. Instead, you employ empty, strawman arguments like supposing that 9/11 truthers all believe lots of steel melted.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
-WHY isn't there a single whistleblower coming forward to name names, reveal timetables, etc the way every OTHER conspiracy was exposed? They send secret agents to hunt down the other secret agents.

Another tired argument debunked long ago. Firstly, no would risk their lives whistleblowing, knowing that they would be killed for going public. And what would be the point, anyway, when they know that they would be ignored by the media and that few people except 9/11 truthers would be inclined to believe what they said? There is no common sense to your argument.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...then they turn around and complain the reason why it sounds convoluted is becuase the boogeyman is releasing disinformation to make them look bad! I said it before and I'll say it again- if these conspiracy people were to every hold their own conspiracy theories up to the same stringent level of critical analysis they do with the 9/11 Commission report, they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists, for very long.

Again, you put false words in the mouths of truthers in order to discredit them. It's really a cheap form of argument. Don't you realize how transparent your sly, disingenuous tactics have become? Your arguments are so ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Well put sir, well put.

Do you know what makes me sad about the conspirator theorists? The ones cashing in with books and DVDs. There should be some sort of hearing that brings in these so call ‘specialists’ and ask them to irrefutable prove what they say is true, e.g. The destruction of the WTC by the Death Star disintegrator cannon……and if they cannot, take any earnings they have made and give to the families of the bereaved.

And here is one for you truthers, how do you know that all these conspiracies you believe in are not created by a super government conspiracies agency that has conspired to conceal the truth behind a smoke screen of conspiracies?



edit on 13-3-2012 by windsorblue because: talking rubbish

edit on 13-3-2012 by windsorblue because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


Can I ask you the question then: Why was the attack on the WTC so complicated in its planning? Why have a plan so dependant on all factors that if one of them had failed at any point it would have ended in failure for the conspirators. E.g. if the supposed explosives in the tower failed to detonate due the planes impact what would they have done?



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I watched 9/11 unfold live as it was being reported on television and I thought when I saw it that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. I'm not an engineer but it just doesn't seem logical that the buildings came down the way they did only from the impact of the planes. I wonder if you set up an experiment using model airplanes and buildings builit to scale, could you ever get two buildings to implode perfectly just by having the planes hit them just like the real thing? I realize this would be hard to duplicate exactly right down to the materials and type of jet fuel, etc. or maybe someone hs already tried something like this that I'm not aware of? But this was my impression from the beginning, that it was controlled demolition.
edit on 13-3-2012 by TZela because: adding words for clarification

edit on 13-3-2012 by TZela because: spelling correction



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
If you were more informed about the events of 9/11, you would have been familiar with the fact reported by Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc., that the weekend before the 9/11 WTC demolition, all power was shut down to install "computer cables." No one was allowed inside and all security cameras and alarms had no power for 30 hours. Engineers were coming and going all the time, Forbes said, and there was no security in the towers.


I attempted to look at your link but it only called up a Wayback site that kept loading forever...but it doesn't matter becuase unless you were trying to reference someone quoting someone who's quoting someone eslse who's quoting someone else, you're almost certainly referring to THIS interview:

Scott Forbes interview

FIRST, you're embellishing his story because nowhere did he ever say "there was no security in the towers". The security CAMERAS were down but the army of NYPA police were still there, and even then he can only confirm a powerdown on his own floor, and even then it was only in the SOUTH tower- the north tower was untouched. SECOND, he himself acknowledges how all the heating systems, air conditioning, wiring, etc were all outdated, and he openly says these technicians weren't acting suspicious or trying to hide what they were doing.

Let's face it, this really WAS an upgrade to the wiring systems and you conspiracy people are simply using it to grasp at straws in desperation to keep your "controlled demolitions" stories alive. Here's a link showing the observation deck was still open on that day-

Examination of Scot Forbe's account


Now, computer cables don't connect with building electricity, so the need to turn off and close both towers to do so is indicative of another motive, like planting charges without alarms and video surveillance. Marvin Bush, brother to President George and Jeb, was a principal in Securacom, which was in charge of security for the World Trade Center. In other words, we have highly reliable witnesses who reported suspicious acitivity a few days before 9/11. Get yourself informed. It might make your sarcasm more effective, although I doubt it.


We're being fast and loose with the facts again. Securacom was NOT in charge of WTC security. It was a company called Kroll, Inc (they were the ones who brought John O'Neill in). Securacom only sold security equipment to the WTC.

Wikipedia entry on Kroll, Inc
Wikipedia entry on Securacom

What gets me really isn't that you're simply just blindly repeating what those damned fool conspiracy web sites are telling you. What gets me is that it took me about a minute of Google searching to find out all this stuff showing all these conspiracy claims are wrong, which tells me you didn't even care to do that much research to look into these claims. All you did was read that some sinister secret boogeyman was plotting to murder us all on some damned fool conspiracy web site and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Now you've learned something. You're obviously not stupid. You're just the victim in their con.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 



If you were more informed about the events of 9/11, you would have been familiar with the fact reported by Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc., that the weekend before the 9/11 WTC demolition, all power was shut down to install "computer cables." No one was allowed inside and all security cameras and alarms had no power for 30 hours. Engineers were coming and going all the time, Forbes said, and there was no security in the towers. Now, computer cables don't connect with building electricity, so the need to turn off and close both towers to do so is indicative of another motive, like planting charges without alarms and video surveillance. Marvin Bush, brother to President George and Jeb, was a principal in Securacom, which was in charge of security for the World Trade Center. In other words, we have highly reliable witnesses who reported suspicious acitivity a few days before 9/11. Get yourself informed. It might make your sarcasm more effective, although I doubt it.


Forbes has been discredited years ago when kept changing story when pressed

For one power was not shut off to the entire tower

To do so what have meant informing every client in the building of pending shutdown weeks in advance
considering that many of the tenants were banks or financial firms with 24 hours operations

Having been involved in situations like this - there are multiple warning emails sent to everyone in the affected
area. Plus techs are assigned to shut down computers/servers/printers before and then sent back to restart
and test everything after. Lot of people are involved - yet have just 1 person claiming that power was shut off

The observation deck in South Tower was open that weekend - so much for no power unless those poor
touists hiked up the 106 floors to the observation deck

Forbes when pressed to give some evidence of the "power down" kept backing off until come to point that
section of floor occupied by Fiducary Trust was powered off while working on electrical cabling



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Apocalypse1
 



Landing a plane at 500mph...???

Just what kind of delusional thinking is that ...?

Planes do not land at 500mph! Landing speed is less than 1/3 that at 150mph


I'm neither delusional nor naive and I do not appreciate these kind of condescending reply's. As the old saying goes, "if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen."


As for for the side that was just reinforced - reason hit that side was simple

That was the direction he came in from....


Yea, after he turned the jet around.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 




I don't feel any closer to understanding what occurred now I than I did 10 years ago.


I feel the same way. I believe I have more to consider, but I'm not any closer to knowing the truth. My opinion has been this...I don't believe we (the U.S. Gov) detonated explosives on purpose to bring down the towers, however, what I do believe is this...Bush Administration officials learned of a terrorist plot against the U.S., specifically involving planes and buildings, and they sat idly. Bush needed a war; his war. They needed a reason to instigate a war "on terror." They initiated training plans to divert the nation's defenses so there would be confusion. The conspiracy is they knew about it but did nothing to stop it. That's just my opinion.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


I don't feel any closer to understanding what occurred now I than I did 10 years ago.


I feel the same way. I believe I have more to consider, but I'm not any closer to knowing the truth. My opinion has been this...I don't believe we (the U.S. Gov) detonated explosives on purpose to bring down the towers, however, what I do believe is this...Bush Administration officials learned of a terrorist plot against the U.S., specifically involving planes and buildings, and they sat idly. Bush needed a war; his war. They needed a reason to instigate a war "on terror." They initiated training plans to divert the nation's defenses so there would be confusion. The conspiracy is they knew about it but did nothing to stop it. That's just my opinion.


Do you think the Laws of Physics give a damn about any conspiracy?

Do you think the Laws of Physics give a damn about any government?

Do you think any skyscraper over 1000 feet tall can be designed to hold itself up without getting the physics correct? So why don't you expect to be told the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings and why don't you expect physicists to ask those questions regardless of who or what destroyed the towers?

psik



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I believe the spirit of the thread was to express our own views regarding September 11th. I did that. You obviously did too. How about leaving it at that. If you can't do that maybe you should not be posting.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Apocalypse1
 


He turned the jet for a simple reason - came in too high. Had to bled off some altitude . made a 270 deg
turn to line up again on the Pentagon

Pentagon is in a depression near the Potomac River

As for condescending - it is you who made idiotic remark about trying to land plane at 500 mph



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Yes, and who is the mature one here? The one who assumes that I've not seen hours of footage, or the one who isn't ready to blindly believe all the conspiracies when there is no tangible evidence? I will not take conspiracies on faith.


well then, sorry to say. if you "have seen hours of footage" and failed to raise one
eyebrow after all is said and done, you must be either:

A) a liar
B) a chicken#
C) a retard (no retarded people pun intended)

it is that simple. easey peasey, debunker.
stay strong. all "scientific" and stuff.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by psyop911
well then, sorry to say. if you "have seen hours of footage" and failed to raise one
eyebrow after all is said and done, you must be either:

A) a liar
B) a chicken#
C) a retard (no retarded people pun intended)

it is that simple. easey peasey, debunker.
stay strong. all "scientific" and stuff.


Again, you're assuming. I have "raised my eyebrow" at things. For a while, I was convinced that building 7 had to be a conspiracy, but then I did more research. My research has revealed simple explanations for the behavior of everything thus far, and there has not been an ounce of physical evidence or even testimony to prove explosives or otherwise.

I'm not sure why you're so dead set on believing this that you feel the need to belittle other people.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Forbes has been discredited years ago when kept changing story when pressed

For one power was not shut off to the entire tower

To do so what have meant informing every client in the building of pending shutdown weeks in advance
considering that many of the tenants were banks or financial firms with 24 hours operations

Having been involved in situations like this - there are multiple warning emails sent to everyone in the affected
area. Plus techs are assigned to shut down computers/servers/printers before and then sent back to restart
and test everything after. Lot of people are involved - yet have just 1 person claiming that power was shut off

The observation deck in South Tower was open that weekend - so much for no power unless those poor
touists hiked up the 106 floors to the observation deck


Keep in mind that this isn't to say he's lying outright. In my last position our own building had a powerdown and I was the one who had to stick around on the weekend to shut down the servers exactly like Forbes did, so I know from personal experience it happens. It's almost certainly the case it was just done locally to his area, and it's DEFINITELY the case security was still in place- just because the power was off it doesn't mean security is opening the door to let anyone come in off the street to rip off people's laptops.

I'm just wondering whether the con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites got to him, the same way they got to April Gallop. She's been changing her story more and more toward the surreal ever since she hooked up with Alex Jones the same way.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I believe the spirit of the thread was to express our own views regarding September 11th. I did that. You obviously did too. How about leaving it at that. If you can't do that maybe you should not be posting.


I guess physics is not cosmic enough.

psik



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psyop911
well then, sorry to say. if you "have seen hours of footage" and failed to raise one
eyebrow after all is said and done, you must be either:

A) a liar
B) a chicken#
C) a retard (no retarded people pun intended)

it is that simple. easey peasey, debunker.
stay strong. all "scientific" and stuff.


Again, you're assuming. I have "raised my eyebrow" at things. For a while, I was convinced that building 7 had to be a conspiracy, but then I did more research. My research has revealed simple explanations for the behavior of everything thus far, and there has not been an ounce of physical evidence or even testimony to prove explosives or otherwise.

I'm not sure why you're so dead set on believing this that you feel the need to belittle other people.
So, you 'did more research' and then changed your mind? Building 7 falls straight down, unimpeded into its own footprint and you think thats been explained? Belittle is too mild a word for people like you. People that pretend to be something other than a 'frontman' for the creeps responsible for this crime. My research has revealed simple explanations for people like you, you get paid to peddle nonsense. Only someone with an ulterior motive would continue to say the things you and Dave say, because nobody could be that stupid.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Apocalypse1
 



He turned the jet for a simple reason - came in too high. Had to bled off some altitude . made a 270 deg
turn to line up again on the Pentagon


From what the air traffic controllers said about the pilots handling of the 757 it does sound like he could have brought the plane down anytime he wanted to. And just how do you know he came in too high. You been talking to Hani or is this just another goofy theory without an ounce of evidence to back it up?


As for condescending - it is you who made idiotic remark about trying to land plane at 500 mph


Did I say pilots land planes at 500 mph? No. That's simply your misinterpretation of what I said.

What I was trying to get across was that anyone who can fly a 757 at such speeds with no more than a foot of air between the bottom of the engines and the ground is certainly more than capable of landing that aircraft at the normal speed. In others words, any pilot that could do that would have to have very intimate knowledge of the aircraft and know just how close he could take it to the ground.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 



My research has revealed simple explanations for people like you, you get paid to peddle nonsense.

Is this the same impeccable research skills that revealed to you that building 7 fell striaght down, unimpeded and in its own footprint?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
So, you 'did more research' and then changed your mind? Building 7 falls straight down, unimpeded into its own footprint and you think thats been explained? Belittle is too mild a word for people like you. People that pretend to be something other than a 'frontman' for the creeps responsible for this crime. My research has revealed simple explanations for people like you, you get paid to peddle nonsense. Only someone with an ulterior motive would continue to say the things you and Dave say, because nobody could be that stupid.


Rhetoric, my dear Watson, will get you nowhere. It didn't fall straight down, but to the South. It didn't fall in its footprint, unless you extend its footprint to the South across the street. It wasn't unimpeded, as the building had to collapse for a number of seconds internally before the exterior came down.

Since I'm not being paid, nor am I peddling nonsense, your research must be worth nothing. Only someone who is paranoid as hell would continue to think that the government is paying random people to post against you and your beliefs, because people who are sane use logical thought process.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join