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.

 

I'm pretty sure this building is going to collapse - Sharjah Skyscraper!

page: 15
63
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
reply to post by hooper
 





Sorry, I'll try harder next time. Say, can you help me? Can you please use this oppurtunity to spam me some conspiracy websites so that I can do some research?


How do you expect to get to the bottom of anything if you only listen to 1 side of an argument? If their information is bunk, then you should have the confidence to check them out and distinguish for yourself.

If you really wanted to know who was behind 9/11 or question the official facts, you'd have done your homework and looked into "the conspiracy sites"... show me one corporation's site, or gov't agency, where corruption was admitted to. If they don't get caught, they never admit any wrong doings.


edit on 1-5-2012 by JibbyJedi because: (no reason given)


THIS!

Well basically -- ANYONE calling into question the 9/11 story of the Bush Government is ON A CONSPIRACY WEBSITE.

I just listened to NPR covering Ben Bernanke saying; "government stimulus and an end to the Bush tax cuts would be imprudent and reckless." If the American public can get hosed by the biggest crooks on the planet, who just so happen to be running things while it was THEIR former company that made out like a bandit -- can swallow this garbage from a station that doesn't rebut it and STILL think that NPR is Liberal, or that we aren't always being lied to -- well; "stupid is as stupid does" quoth Forest Gump.


9/11 Events will happen again -- because we never punished the people responsible. Like we never punished the Iran/Contra culprits nor the Nixon administration. In fact; nobody has been more rewarded than the biggest failures and crooks in American history.

Meanwhile, whistleblowers are in protective custody, and Cheney is still at large.




posted on May, 1 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 



Obviously, these other four companies have OWNERS.

Yep, and I'm one of them. Stock is a wonderful thing.

No matter how you choose to obfuscate the facts.....

What facts?

....they each have CEO's calling the shots.

Really? You think the CEO's or COO's of these companies personally review, on a pass - no pass basis, the product of their companies every day? Please. And if they don't then someone else does - and everyone of those "someone elses" have to be in on the "inside job". And it just keeps getting bigger and sillier....

These five corporations now own 90 percent of the GLOBAL media.... which is now PRIVATIZED. Yes, that means China, North Korea, Iran and Russia.... and everywhere else. Go and prove me a liar with evidence to the contrary, you nasty little twit.

Well, rather than someone trying to prove you're not lying - why don't you prove you are telling the truth. Here's a challenge - define and prove your 90% figure.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 



Here's a quick diagnosis of a CLOSED MIND


Ah, the old "closed mind" retort. I admit, I am rather fussy about what goes in there. Because I won't spend hours going over everything on some conspiracy website, I have a closed mind. Fine. Whatever. Rather than links to videos and conspiracy websites, etc, why don't you just right down, in your post, what you mean and why. Then if your challenged to present a resources link directly to the page in question.


The DIRECT LINKE to the firefighters talking about molten steel was 35 seconds.

You should at LEAST not comment on the veracity of something and then say; "I've seen no proof of that" in the next breathe if you aren't going to be "spammed" by an eyewitness account.

Here's the link AGAIN -- so at least you can't say; "I've seen no evidence of this."

Not from the point of view of a "truther" - just someone reading your points -- I think you are pretty intellectually dishonest and mentally lazy. If you can keep only "pure things of value" going into your gentle mind -- stay off the internet -- and for God's sake, stay off of AboveTopSecret.

You can read about lizard aliens, interstellar embargoes, and chemtrails -- but you find THIS topic is really, really out there? Obviously, you are merely trying to ridicule -- it's not really a farfetched topic if we look at all the OTHER topics. So I'm just trying to find some credibility in your concept of "only putting good information" into your pristine brain -- and once again, I think you are just saying things to "win" and you ignore information "to win" and what are you trying to win?

It's when people bring up EVERY conspiracy theory when it's JUST ABOUT WTC collapse -- that's just trying to pollute the discussion. Nobody can be responsible for every errant thought and crackpot idea on the Internet.

We know that the 9/11 investigation was stymied. WE KNOW the NIST eventually admitted it was a "freefall collapse" -- and yet, there are people here who claim that the Slow Collapse of WTC 7 is still what happened. At least CATCH UP to your own Official Theory before throwing stones at the people who call it into doubt.

One column near the base triggered the collapse of all the others -- and it was at near free-fall speed. Read the NIST report at least, before you POLLUTE YOUR MIND with all the conspiracy nonsense. AT least pollute your mind with "the alleged facts" before you promote those facts.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 





9/11 Events will happen again -- because we never punished the people responsible. Like we never punished the Iran/Contra culprits nor the Nixon administration. In fact; nobody has been more rewarded than the biggest failures and crooks in American history.

Name one guilty person.
Name their exact crime.
Show us absolute proof that will stand up in court.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by hooper
 

Thank you hooper. You can add the part about hypnotically programming all the people in the city that day that watched it happen. Like "Men in Black"? Excuse me ladies and gentleman, could you all please look this way for a moment? Annnnd zzzzt,.. thank you.

No, when confronted with the people that claim to have seen the planes strike the towers, they use the 'Hologram Defense'.

Thank you, your reply is more accurate. Who would say such a thing? There is only one thing more ridiculous than starting a "hologram" explanation, and that is believing it. Were it possible even to project such a hologram display, the logistics like the number and size of the projectors, their locations, and the difficulty of smoke and raining debris and dust would make any rational attempt to believe that idea simply ludicrous.

For one, daylight is way to bright to for the hologram to be visible, they would have done it at night. Another is that the laser beams would be reflected by any real smoke generators, thus breaking up the image. They would have to practice with these super powerful laser projectors for weeks, months ahead of time to make it all work, lol. Sorry, I have to stop, I am breaking up......



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Oh, and before this Cooper fellow starts saying that the "freefall collapse" is my CONSPIRACY THEORY -- maybe he can argue with the government agency he so doggishly believes LINK

That's some top dude at the NIST admitting that it was a FAST collapse -- so anyone looking at these slow-motion videos is blowing hot air and hasn't caught up to THE OFFICIAL DOCTRINE.

The Northwest corner of WTC 7 for 2.5 seconds, the building fell at a rate "indistinguishable to freefall".

I have another TERM for such people -- but don't want to abuse the TERMS OF DISCUSSION on ATS.


>> Also NOTE; the NIST created their model for 9/11 BEFORE admitting to the Freefall collapse assuming it took 47% longer. They didn't change their model after changing this important fact.

Again, here is a great STEP BY STEP walkthrough on how anyone can clock the speed of collapse; LINK

NOTE: Not even a controlled demolition STARTS falling at full speed. So you start TIMING things after it gets underway.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

(shĭl) Slang. n. One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle. v., shilled, shill·ing, shills. v.intr. To act as a shill. v.tr. To act as a shill for (a deceitful enterprise). To lure (a person) into a swindle. Read more: www.answers.com...



Can we pleas for the love of sanity stop using this word and truther and racist etc......it is as nauseating as celebutards who keep saying everything is "so surreal"......



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 





9/11 Events will happen again -- because we never punished the people responsible. Like we never punished the Iran/Contra culprits nor the Nixon administration. In fact; nobody has been more rewarded than the biggest failures and crooks in American history.

Name one guilty person.
Name their exact crime.
Show us absolute proof that will stand up in court.


THIS is pretty easy -- but I'm only going to go from a few things off the top of my head because I don't have THE TIME to be complete -- also everyone on this list is wanted in some way for high crimes in numerous countries like Columbia, Germany and Canada. The Bush administration had to do a lot of legal negotiations to push charges off the dockets when they went on a foreign tour -- notably, almost every country they visited had some Bush administration figure on a WANTED list ( couldn't find the actual charges -- because there are TOO MANY things that former Bush administration officials are wanted for ):

Dick Cheney; Trading with the Enemy. Weapons shipments. Moving funds to banks to avoid taxation--he even had a website so YOU could join the fun. Admitted on-air to supporting "extreme interrogation techniques" that by any other standard are torture.

Donald Rumsfeld; arranging for sales of WMDs to Iraq during the Reagan administration. Obstruction of justice.

George Bush senior: selling weapons to an anti-American regime in Iran. Funds and support to terrorists holding American's hostage. Cocaine shipments via Panama for personal gain (one captured pilot even had the President's personal cell phone on a business card in his pocket).

>> Oops, I've got to go. Just know that I could be spending about 5 hours filling out this list. There is also evidence for about HALF the charges that would stick in court-- see; "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder." LINKA prosecutor wrote a book on what charges to file.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 



Not even a controlled demolition STARTS falling at full speed. So you start TIMING things after it gets underway.

Here on planet earth everything falls the same way. "Full speed" = terminal velocity. Nothing on 9/11 start falling at terminal velocity. And on controlled demolitions they don't time anything. And then you wonder why there's no new investigation.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Those Truthers will go to any length to make their case!



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Those are just claims by you. Pretty vague I might add.

Dick Cheny had a website????? That's news to me. What was it's domain name?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink

(shĭl) Slang. n. One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle. v., shilled, shill·ing, shills. v.intr. To act as a shill. v.tr. To act as a shill for (a deceitful enterprise). To lure (a person) into a swindle. Read more: www.answers.com...



Can we pleas for the love of sanity stop using this word and truther and racist etc......it is as nauseating as celebutards who keep saying everything is "so surreal"......


Why? I mean if a poster here really thinks I am shill - well they should be free to say so. And if I think someone is a racist then I should also be free to point that out. Same thing with truther.

And I really don't get the surreal reference.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I don't understand why this video is being used for a comparison to 911? I mean,everyone is in agreement that there were thousands upon thousands of gallons of jet fuel all over the place.This is fact, right or wrong? What about the impact from the planes? When does that get brought into the equation?Why do the skeptics refuse to hold these planes accountable for the colossal amount of damage that was done?
I'm not a demolition expert nor will I pretend to act like I know what I am talking about. So I'm gonna leave it at that.I just find it kind of reckless and ill conceived to show a random video of an office building that caught fire and then make comparisons. Insinuating that if the building doesn't come down the same exact way the World Trade Center did then that could only mean one thing....that 911 was an inside job! Its stuff like this that make your argument fall apart?
Dont get me wrong, there is certainly more then meets the eye. Unfortantely this is not it. My suspicions always swayed more towards the Pentagon crash.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 



Not even a controlled demolition STARTS falling at full speed. So you start TIMING things after it gets underway.

Here on planet earth everything falls the same way. "Full speed" = terminal velocity. Nothing on 9/11 start falling at terminal velocity. And on controlled demolitions they don't time anything. And then you wonder why there's no new investigation.

You don't think there is anything to investigate, everything has been explained over and over by NIST, 9/11 Commission Report. That is why you are here everyday trying so hard to expose the conspiracy theorists and their fantasy. The terrorists have been killed, justice have been served. Am I wrong?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

You don't think there is anything to investigate, everything has been explained over and over by NIST, 9/11 Commission Report. That is why you are here everyday trying so hard to expose the conspiracy theorists and their fantasy. The terrorists have been killed, justice have been served. Am I wrong?

You have been deceived about that, I'm afraid. Science is the pursuit of knowledge of reality. However, your delusion lies in the fond, but false belief that you can know reality by letting your chosen 'experts' know it for you and then tell you about it. And that is an oxymoron because it is impossible for anyone else to know anything for you. So it is really perpetual ignorance of reality that you are pursuing by following in that authoritarian way. NIST in fact haven't been able to explain the collapse of WTC1 or 2 – their $100,000,000 computer models stop at 'collapse initiation' and do not go any further. And NIST have refused to allow their models to be independently verified by outsiders for their claimed veracity. What NIST have done is not science. They have constructed inscrutable computer models that they refuse to allow to be seen by anyone outside of their self-referencing clique. As for the Commission Report. You don't really believe that's nonpartisan, do you?



And then you wonder why there's no new investigation.

Oh my, what an illusory world you inhabit. There's been no new investigation because the people at the highest echelons of power do not want a new investigation.
edit on 1-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Just popped in to see who's arguing with Hooper or GoodoldDave. Huh, same argument, different youtube video.

I just can't help adding what I usually add to this subject. Building 7.

Let's just leave out the other 2 buildings completely for now. 7 was a skyscraper not hit by any plane, but caught fire and collapsed at freefall, it housed super important stuff, stuff that might send important people to jail. In comparison to just about any other tall building fires, I'd guess this one defies logic more than all others in it's quick failure. But logic has no place here I suppose.

Money
Power-Control
Politics
needed renovations
insurance money
10+ years to plan

You can choose to think all googly eyed with sunshine and flowers about the powerful in our world or you can take off the glasses and think like them. What would you do if you knew your skyscrapers needed serious renovations that would cost more to repair than to tear them down and start over? (and don't forget the extensive time, ridiculous efforts, and tremendous inconvenience of those renovations to all of Manhattan) What would you do if you had 10+ years until the deadline for these renovations to be done? What would you do if the pubic had become too strong? Take them down a notch maybe? What would you do if you had to justify 2 trillion dollars that'd gone missing, but can't explain it to the public? What would you do if you had friends in the highest places, would you take advantage of that or be polite, if you were them, of course. Remember they have not gotten to where they are because they are nice, or fair.

Who hired those on the commission? And who were they? Were they impartial parties?*

*No.

It's not just about the building failures which have not been studied impartially, it's all of it. All of It is suspect. Sheesh, anyone that does not question the entire day's supposed events after a study of all the different aspects, is walking on sunshine, ohhhhh ohh!



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 



JET A-1

Flash point......................................................................38C
Auto-ignition temperature..................................................210 C
Freezing point..................................................................-47C
Open air burning temperatures...........................................260C-315C
Maximum burning temperature...........................................980C (1796F)



Open air burning........

2 minutes temperature over 2000 F .......

Stop the presses!

Someone should tell EMERTEC at New Mexico State University, that Jet fuel cant burn that hot

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 
Additional air supplied to the fire via convection(chimney effect) caused by open elevator shafts and service chaises due to the aircraft crash could have easily pushed the temps to 2,500 degrees F or higher.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by timetothink
 



JET A-1

Flash point......................................................................38C
Auto-ignition temperature..................................................210 C
Freezing point..................................................................-47C
Open air burning temperatures...........................................260C-315C
Maximum burning temperature...........................................980C (1796F)



Open air burning........

2 minutes temperature over 2000 F .......

Stop the presses!

Someone should tell EMERTEC at New Mexico State University, that Jet fuel cant burn that hot

www.youtube.com...


Building 7?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Maybe some of the 'jet fuel can't burn that hot' crowd should take up the argument with Stanford University:


In the combustion chamber, fuel is mixed with air to produce the bang, which is responsible for the expansion that forces the air into the turbine. Inside the typical commercial jet engine, the fuel burns in the combustion chamber at up to 2000 degrees Celsius. The temperature at which metals in this part of the engine start to melt is 1300 degrees Celsius, so advanced cooling techniques must be used.

Stanford University Source

Jet fuel can't burn that hot?




top topics



 
63
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join