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.

 

9/11: Where the evidence has led me so far

page: 6
50
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


And on what grounds do you state your claim? The commission report? I humbly request that you help me understand what you think should show to me beyond a doubt who "masterminded" the September 11th attacks...
edit on 22-4-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jlm912
 


Yes, the "Commission" report.

Here is the PDF

The "masterminds" are a 'confluence' of personalities...'KSM' is the "leader".

This is history.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Could you not understand the loss of the ethos appeal of certain members of the 9/11 commission in light of the Iran-Contra scandal?



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jlm912
 


huh??


Iran-Contra?

In the late 1980s???

This connects how, again??



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


Are you an engineer?
Did you even look at the plans of WTC?
How did you come upon your conclusion?



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Once again.......the silliness prevails:


If an airliner can totally destroy a skyscraper more than 2,000 times its own mass.....


To attempt to infer this, is nonsense.

It's equivalent to saying that a "tiny" bullet cannot kill a Human.

To edit.....if the concept of a "fatal blow" cannot be understood???

Oh, what a ridiculous "argument"......(as usual).


A tiny bullet may kill a human but it does not tear the body apart.

You are talking nonsense. Skyscrapers are inanimate. Airliners are inanimate.

Making comparisons to the animate are idiotic.

That is the other part of the 9/11 problem. Supposedly intelligent people presenting arguments that are so absurd and so easy to shoot down it is ridiculous. But then that is the 9/11 issue. A large percentage of not so smart believers who will accept shallow arguments for what they prefer to believe.

psik
edit on 22-4-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Again......please try to keep up......my "bullet" analogy does NOT take into account GRAVITY.

It was an analogy to be used to describe a fatal wound, to the "structure"....whether the Human body, or a building.

Really.....I thought that was rather obvious??



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Well, if I haven't inserted my foot in my own mouth...


The connections are very vague and upon second examination I'll save face and omit the "evidence" and rescind the claim. I am reading the report in full and will get back to you.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
When I opened this thread, I was hoping to see a well-researched post describing the evidence that the poster observed, and what conclusions he/she had drawn from it. I thought I would see something different from the "Every REAL truther knows automatically that the OS is false, so I'm working from there."

Instead, yup, it's just a massive circle-jerk of people drawing conclusions from the assumption that the OS is false. No one even considers the possibility. That's a huge bias and would disqualify you from any academic paper.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


On a side note, out of curiosity, how do you rationalize the reports of building 7's collapse while it was still standing, specifically that of BBC?



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by ProudBird
 


On a side note, out of curiosity, how do you rationalize the reports of building 7's collapse while it was still standing, specifically that of BBC?


I know it's not addressed to me, but this one's fairly easy to understand. The firefighters had been clearing a collapse zone around Building 7 since around 3pm that day. It collapsed at around 5pm, and for a half-hour before, people were going crazy with rescue efforts and rumors were flying every which way. BBC jumped the gun and declared that Building 7 had collapsed, and it's not surprising, considering how certain the firefighters were of it.

I believe there's an interview somewhere where a firefighter recalled sitting next to his friend and telling him that the building was going to fall, maybe not today, but tomorrow for sure, and then the building collapsed a few minutes later.

Maybe I'm just crazy, but why can't hardly anyone else here see the normal explanations for things?



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OGOldGreg
reply to post by mayabong
 


Hmmm, this I did not know. The idea of him being CIA linke is a bit too far fetched for me though.

Although when he did "admit" to it, I kind of felt like something was definitely off about it. This makes a lot more sense now.


How is that too far fetched for you? It's a historical fact he worked with the CIA in Afghanistan (through the mujahideen) when they were working jointly against the Soviets in conjunction with the ISI. Back then the media called them "freedom fighters". It's a bit worrisome that you contend the official story is credible yet you find the idea Bin Laden had CIA links "too far fetched" for you.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I knew it was only a matter of time until certain ATSers showed up to remind those questioning 911 that they're delusional. Anytime a 911 thread pops up, they're all over it like flies on dung, they use tactics meant to wear you down and leave you scrambling for more information. I'll admit, they're good at what they do. Very good.
edit on 22-4-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by L00kingGlass
 


Huh?

Here's just the first sentence, from the OP:


The World Trade Center was destroyed via deliberate, controlled demolition.


There is NO evidence, at all, to support that assertion.

Rest is the "same old, same old" long-ago-debunked rhetoric.......rhetoric fueled by the persistence of the Internet, and the same garbage that has been posted, gets re-posted, and along comes an entire next generation of people unable to discern fact from fiction.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Again......please try to keep up......my "bullet" analogy does NOT take into account GRAVITY.

It was an analogy to be used to describe a fatal wound, to the "structure"....whether the Human body, or a building.

Really.....I thought that was rather obvious??


I regard it as obvious that talking about a bullet hitting anything animate in comparison to a plane hitting a skyscraper was totally idiotic. Skyscrapers don't have movable joints and muscles requiring blood flow. So the analysis dose not need to go beyond Newtonian Physics. But after ten years the physics profession needs to explain not demanding accurate data on the skyscraper.

How could they accurately compute the potential energy without steel and concrete mass distributions even if the buildings were destroyed by airliners? Of course if they weren't then they come across as even more ridiculous.

psik



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by L00kingGlass
 


Huh?

Here's just the first sentence, from the OP:


The World Trade Center was destroyed via deliberate, controlled demolition.


There is NO evidence, at all, to support that assertion.

Rest is the "same old, same old" long-ago-debunked rhetoric.......rhetoric fueled by the persistence of the Internet, and the same garbage that has been posted, gets re-posted, and along comes an entire next generation of people unable to discern fact from fiction.


Who said I was talking about you? Struck a nerve I think!

NO evidence at all to support that assertion? Oh dear... I battled with you over this once before, I won't be making that mistake again. I'll leave you to your fantasy world since you're so intent on remaining there.

Toodles!



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


What's sad is how many people I have met that believe the official story. Also because of it I can literally see the hate in thier eyes for the middle eastern people because of it... It truly sickens me. I also absolutely do not believe thier "official" story for 9/11.

What 9/11 was was a blood ritual. A satanic blood ritual. This blood ritual was performed to not only continue thier influence of power, but to broaden it around the world.

9/11 was done by the smiling bull# artist leaders you see on television everyday. They are all in on it whether some of them know it or not. It is a luciferian agenda. The Georgia guide stones are part of this luciferian agenda.

When I see people arguing against the conspiracy theory, or the truth as I say, it really sickens me at the level of ignorance in this world. At how many people don't understand what is to come. To them and thier family's. How blind can people possibly be? Either you are a paid shill or you are just too damn patriotic to believe that people in power would go to such drastic measures to ensure thier place of power and to expand it. Some of you people defiantly fall for the illusion... Truly sad... And I feel for you.

Also to the assholes that say debunk this and debunk that... How the # do you claim to debunk anything? You people are fools... FOOLS! Some of you assholes will be the first in line at the concentration camps saying I'm debunking that this is happening... Then after your head is shaved and you've been classified for slave labor you'll still be trying to debunk... Frickin idiots.
edit on 22-4-2012 by Enemyc0mbatant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Enemyc0mbatant
 




They are all in on it whether some of them know it or not. It is a luciferian agenda. The Georgia guide stones are part of this luciferian agenda.


Truth! Only a Luciferian speaks of implied genocide, and perpetuates lies in order to advance their twisted agenda.


Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the Lord, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?"



There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves.



edit on 22-4-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Again......it was a "wound" to each building....and that proved fatal.

IF the WTC were constructed of more conventional design? Then, they'd still be standing......"conventional" as in typical girders, and vertical columns through-out.

This is well-covered already, in countless treatises.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


Pretty much sums up my view of it also. Nice to see there are at least a few Americans left with some actually firing neurons. Absolutely had to be demolition. There is no way I will ever believe two buildings can be hit with Jetliners and both buildings fall straight down. And then of course another building (#7) which was never hit at all, also falls straight down. As for the Bin Laden thing. How can a 7ft tall Arab surviving on kidney dialysis be hiding in caves and never found? Google "Tim Osmond" and you will see that he is supposed to have been a CIA asset. Kinda splains the whole elCIAda thing...



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join