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

page: 23
63
<< 20  21  22   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1


link

link

You people are a bunch of clowns . lol
edit on 3-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


Yeah that totally proves that it's a crime because Dick Cheney is in jail now.

Jeez...


It proves something else, wiseguy!


Then why did you post it?

You were purporting to show that this was a crime. Absurdly your link - either because you are naive or because you didn't think this through properly - shows no such thing. Do you understand that that damages your credibilty and makes you look a bit silly?


Lol, you guys.
You can't fix stupid, so I won't even try.
Maybe when you'll grow up a little you'll understand how stupid you make Americans look to the rest of the world.


According to Cheney he had the President's approval from a telephone conversation that morning. Has GWB ever contradicted that ?

If the order was illegal are you doing anything about bringing it to the attention of law enforcement ?

I really couldn't care less either way on the legality but it is interesting that you obviously don't doubt that Cheney issued a shootdown order. So you don't agree with the old truther canard that a standown order was issued because plainly standown and shootdown are not compatible.


You see I'm here trying to understand why is the 9/11 cover up being allowed for so long. From my very first post on ATS I explained my opinion on the issue. We don't know who was behind the attacks and why they attacked us because the OS is a cover up from top to bottom. Maybe if people stop arguing about everything but the cover up, we might actually find out how it was done and who did it.
You are part of the cover up, do you realize that ?




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   


You see I'm here trying to understand why is the 9/11 cover up being allowed for so long.

You are starting off with an incorrect assumption.

There is no cover up.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 





Because the aide wasn't aware of the earlier telephone conversation between the Vice President and the President ? But, as I said, if someone wants to charge Cheney with something that is fine by me. My only interest is that a shootdown order, which you evidently don't doubt, is incompatible with an "inside job" and a "standown order".

In a real criminal investigation If its not documented it didn't happen. Which is why they had to talk to the commission in private and of the record to cover somethings up. If you agree that they are covering something up how can you be so sure that it wasnt an inside job?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent



You see I'm here trying to understand why is the 9/11 cover up being allowed for so long.

You are starting off with an incorrect assumption.

There is no cover up.


Lol
Said the perp



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 
Oh, BTW-



We are talking about IGNITING C4

You might want to learn the difference between ignition and detonation, if you are going to continue on about explosives. If you light a piece of C-4 and watch it burn, you have ignited it. If you use a primary explosive to cause the C-4 to explode, you have detonated it.

There is a big difference.
One way can heat your can of C-rats, the other can kill you.

edit on 3-5-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

You see I'm here trying to understand why is the 9/11 cover up being allowed for so long. From my very first post on ATS I explained my opinion on the issue. We don't know who was behind the attacks and why they attacked us because the OS is a cover up from top to bottom. Maybe if people stop arguing about everything but the cover up, we might actually find out how it was done and who did it.
You are part of the cover up, do you realize that ?


I don't have any doubts about who was behind the attacks and why and new stuff is coming out all the time :-

www.bbc.co.uk...

There has certainly been some cover-up of ineptitude but the truth will out. I have only been reading recently about the CIA keeping important information about 2 of the hi-jackers in the US from the FBI. Speculation was that maybe the CIA hoped to turn them and therefore preferred to keep them out of the hands of the FBI.

Trouble is that most of the debate on here doesn't address these sort of issues but prefers the dramatic controlled demolitions, remote controlled planes, no planes, holograms , 911 in old movies and all that crud.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1

You see I'm here trying to understand why is the 9/11 cover up being allowed for so long. From my very first post on ATS I explained my opinion on the issue. We don't know who was behind the attacks and why they attacked us because the OS is a cover up from top to bottom. Maybe if people stop arguing about everything but the cover up, we might actually find out how it was done and who did it.
You are part of the cover up, do you realize that ?


I don't have any doubts about who was behind the attacks and why and new stuff is coming out all the time :-

www.bbc.co.uk...

There has certainly been some cover-up of ineptitude but the truth will out. I have only been reading recently about the CIA keeping important information about 2 of the hi-jackers in the US from the FBI. Speculation was that maybe the CIA hoped to turn them and therefore preferred to keep them out of the hands of the FBI.

Trouble is that most of the debate on here doesn't address these sort of issues but prefers the dramatic controlled demolitions, remote controlled planes, no planes, holograms , 911 in old movies and all that crud.


Why don’t you ignore the nonsense and start discussing the cover up then? It would be more productive don’t you think?

I think an inside job is a very real scenario, judging by the history of all governments. And if it wasn’t an inside job, but it could have been stopped and people didn’t have to die that day, then who ever screwed up need to be held accountable. And if nobody could have stopped the attack which is hard to believe based on the evidence that we know of, then we learn from it and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Either way the BS needs to stop and a real investigation needs to start.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


There is no greater of evidence of this than the fact that Bush, who like his Superior, yes Superior, Dick Cheney, were never called to testify but instead gave their testimony in PRIVATE...

Absolutely. Besides sitting in that classroom for 6 minutes, his private and sealed hearing with the commission at the white house is good evidence. How are we to know? When will we know what was said? Somebody leak that tape!!!

Were trying Assange, Manning, Edwards, et al. What about Botch, Chainy and Rumself?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by sallamy
 


I used to stay in the Spark Residence for a time back in '05-'06. I know where this fire took place near the Al Nahda Park, I knew I had seen the buildings around it before, as a girl I was dating took me there to pick up friends to take out for dinner once. Its the AL Tayer building and now they're reporting that they're going to make them go and make the facades fireproof now. Its one of four buildings now that have caught on fire. Me, I would think that arson is involved being that its four.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Sharjah has had many fires on its high-rise buildings due to the flammable cladding used in construction.

As it was a common local occurrence it did not make International News. It was reported in Gulf News and others in the Middle East. Full stories here...

www.constructionweekonline.com...

www.khaleejtimes.com.../nationgeneral/2012/May/nationgeneral_May40.xml§ion=nationgeneral

I feel it would be better for cynical, prejudiced and racist comments to be witheld.
A tragedy is both when human lives are at stake and when onlookers have no compassion.

Also posts on this site would be more interesting if better researched.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I have to wonder at people who show such GLEE at the concept that we will not see justice for 9/11 -- I really do.

Yes it is quite revealing isn't it. Even OS'ers admit that the Gov't was at the very least grossly negligent on the morning of 911. No one has been punished or even reprimanded.

Let's take Rumsfeld and Cheney for example. In June of 2001, that incredible month when so many things were taking place in preparation for PNAC's "New Pearl Harbor" event, Rumsfeld changed a long-standing directive that stated who was authorized to shoot down aircraft.... this removed that ability from everyone except him and the BIG DICK....

The 'Stand-Down Order'

911review.com...

This would mean, of course, that the responsibilty for this royal "screw-up" was ALL THEIRS. THEY OWN IT. They can't blame anyone else.

Were they dealt with accordingly?

No, and these equally traitorous Internet morons keep defending them and are ecstatic that they appear to be walking away scot free, just like they always have. That's why the "Pearl Harbor" comparison by PNAC is so appropriate.



I think that change in the "stand down order" was also started 4 years earlier and set to go into effect on July of 2001.

Silverstein doubled his insurance on the building in July -- after only having taken over the building in January. Another oddity -- I think it was around $170 Million to take over the lease from the Ports Authority -- and Silverstein was looking at over a billion dollars in repairs to get rid of all the asbestos. IF THE BUILDINGS HADN"T BEEN DESTROYED BY TERRORISM -- Silverstein would have been purchasing a White Elephant the Ports Authority wanted to get off their hands -- instead, he makes $6 Billion on an investment of $170 million -- nice action if you can get it.

Guillianni was given an anonymous campaign donation provided he RELOCATE the Emergency Response Center to the WTC 7. If he had not been out goldbricking that day -- he might have been dead.

Just THAT DAY, the Surveillance system at the WTC complex decided to stop working -- was Allah on Bin Laden's side or what?

Billions in trades many times normal levels were shorting airline and banking stocks that day.

>> It seems to me, that all the people going "oops! Nobody could have expected people to fly planes into buildings!" Made out like bandits that day.

I'm sure I'm missing a couple dozen juicy "coincidences."



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by takaris7
 



Wouldnt it make sense the top halves of the building would slide off on the most damaged side instead of straight down into the path of most resistance? (I am not a physics major but it seems logical to me)

Not at all.

The design was planned for a vertical load. Once the top section tilted all bets were off.
Remember the Titanic tilted and tore in half.


The Titanic was designed to function horizontally and be supported for that entire length by water. It just had to be able to cope with storms at sea producing non-uniform support.

The top of the south tower certainly should have fallen down the side. Our problem is too many people can be talked into believing nonsense. Then our so called "scientists" do not ask about the center of mass of the top 29 stories. It is not mentioned in the NIST report either. Great science that.

psik



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The Titanic was designed to function horizontally and be supported for that entire length by water. It just had to be able to cope with storms at sea producing non-uniform support.

The top of the south tower certainly should have fallen down the side. Our problem is too many people can be talked into believing nonsense. Then our so called "scientists" do not ask about the center of mass of the top 29 stories. It is not mentioned in the NIST report either. Great science that.

psik


It might have happened that way if the towers were designed for that to happen, but if the towers were designed almost any other way, there probably wouldn't have been a collapse at all. The open floor truss system is what allowed for the collapse and caused it, in my opinion. Once it starts to tilt, there is no vertical support along the trusses that can prevent a total collapse. Is that really impossible for you to see?



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1


link

link

You people are a bunch of clowns . lol
edit on 3-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


Yeah that totally proves that it's a crime because Dick Cheney is in jail now.

Jeez...


It proves something else, wiseguy!


Then why did you post it?

You were purporting to show that this was a crime. Absurdly your link - either because you are naive or because you didn't think this through properly - shows no such thing. Do you understand that that damages your credibilty and makes you look a bit silly?


Lol, you guys.
You can't fix stupid, so I won't even try.
Maybe when you'll grow up a little you'll understand how stupid you make Americans look to the rest of the world.


You're a joke.

And I'm not even American. Still, what's one more error in a mountain of them.





new topics
top topics
 
63
<< 20  21  22   >>

log in

join