The five biggest issues with the 'Official Story'

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup

If it was an inside job, then it would be difficult to explain how bin laden got access to the towers to rig them up from top to bottom.



I think it is difficult to explain how anybody got access to the towers to rig them up...inside job or not. You can probably tell that I believe the task would have been impossible to pull off.




posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup

If it was an inside job, then it would be difficult to explain how bin laden got access to the towers to rig them up from top to bottom.



Why 'top to bottom' when bottom would be sufficient? And why couldn't Bin Laden buy a way into the basement?

Compromise the buildings near the top then use incendiaries to weaken the bottom followed by modest explosions to finish it.

'Just my imagination, runnin' away with me' M. Jaggar



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by thegameisup

If it was an inside job, then it would be difficult to explain how bin laden got access to the towers to rig them up from top to bottom.



Why 'top to bottom' when bottom would be sufficient? And why couldn't Bin Laden buy a way into the basement?

Compromise the buildings near the top then use incendiaries to weaken the bottom followed by modest explosions to finish it.

'Just my imagination, runnin' away with me' M. Jaggar


Do you even know how the towers fell?

While you're at it ask your imagination how one would get dozens and dozens of tractor trailer type container loads (a convoy) of "incendiaries" into the basement? Tip - Stealth trucks were not yet operation in 2001
edit on 8-7-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Thanks for link, I been over that site thoroughly. Not a lot of facts there but they do a good job of trying to explain things.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Why do you think you would need lots of tractor trailers?

And I'm not trying to argue with you, are you angry with me?



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
reply to post by Reheat
 


Why do you think you would need lots of tractor trailers?

And I'm not trying to argue with you, are you angry with me?


Why do you think it wouldn't take tons? Since you apparently disagree, tell me how much would be required?

Do you know how the towers fell?



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
[Of course, you selected those few witnesses who support your fantasy while ignoring all of the others.


First of all, it is not my fantasy. My fantasy would be that it never happened. I'm just accepting the word of eyewitnesses who were at the scene. But if you know of other witnesses that were there who say they say windows on Flight 175, I'd be willing to listen to what they have to say.


Originally posted by Reheat
Of course, you again selected a photo with light reflections on the bottom of the aircraft. And you're right it wasn't a 757, it was a 767.


Again, I didn't select the photo. It was a still shot from a CNN video. Other videos of the plane also show the anomoly from different angles. A Spanish university performed a digital analysis of the video and concluded that it was an actual object mounted below the plane, not a trick of light and shadow. I'm curious, did you watch the video I posted? But you are right about it being a 767. That changes everything. Maybe 767's have no windows and pods mounted to the starboard side of the fuselage.


Originally posted by Reheat
Not they didn't at all. All that was proven was that pfffft does not understand how ACARS works. You do realize that pffft is one of the most discredited groups in the "truth cult". Their crap is even rejected by most other "truther" goups.


I should have figured they were just a bunch of low down, no good, dirty liars. Pilots are such unreliable and disreputable people. Next time I'll just believe what the Federal Government tells me. They wouldn't lie to me. I'm sure that any day now they will find those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


Originally posted by Reheat
You really need to catch up. That crap was from one of the first versions of Loose Change, a work of fiction. It was refuted as total garbage back in about 2006. In fact, it was omitted from later versions of Loose Change because the idiots that made it realized it was false information...


Wow, I guess I really do need to catch up. I guess there is no way the Federal Government would try to pull a false flag operation on the American people. Especially one that seemed to match Operation Northwoods so closely. Saudis with boxcutters taking orders from a guy in a cave in Afghanistan on dyalisis outsmarting the entire US Air Defense just makes so much more sense.
edit on 8-7-2012 by VictorVonDoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Do you know how the towers fell?


Down?
I'm not sure what you want me to say here.
Take your pick of these: Top down collapse, pancake collapse, controlled demolition(not my favorite because it doesn't look 'controlled' for WTC 1 and 2) progressive collapse?

Do I need to know 'how' the towers fell? Define 'how' for my dumbass please.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
WHY would Al Qaida go through all the time, trouble, and fortune to commit themselves into an attack against such a strategically low value target? Let's face it, the towers were impressive but they were really low value targets as far as the US infrastructure goes.


I noticed another member quoted this passage you wrote and I found it quite interesting.

Why do you call these buildings low value when they potentially can have thousands of people inside at any one time?


I say low value because, yeah, it had the Cartoon network studios, a bunch of mortgage companies, and it was a popular symbol of NYC, but what else did it have have other than a lot of people in one spot at a time?

Remember, there were two other planes heading toward Washington (because one made it there, and the other was heading in that direction), and we know they were intended to crash into buildings as suicide weapons. One of them crashed into the Pentagon, and it cannot be argued the Pentagon is a much higher valued target in comparison to the towers. Flight 93 would likewise have been heading toward some high value target in Washington, because let's face it, they're not going to waste their attack by crashing it into the Washington Monument or the National Mall. They were going to hit something of huge importance, like the US Capitol building or the White House.


I would have thought anyone wanting to commit a terrorist act, be it the supposed Muslim terrorists, or the US government on their own people, then those building would have been a good choice, and also very symbolic.


Possibly, but then again it cannot be argued that the US capitol building and the White House are both higher value targets as well as bigger symbolic buildings to the US than the World Trade Center. That is why I suspect the attack was intended to be a lot bigger than it turned out to be. So is "the official story" just a bunch of random attacks to kill people that mostly succeeded or is "the official story" a coordinated attack against the US infrastructure itself that mostly failed?
edit on 8-7-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom

Originally posted by Reheat
[Of course, you selected those few witnesses who support your fantasy while ignoring all of the others.


First of all, it is not my fantasy. My fantasy would be that it never happened. I'm just accepting the word of eyewitnesses who were at the scene. But if you know of other witnesses that were there who say they say windows on Flight 175, I'd be willing to listen to what they have to say.


Why bother? I'm sure you can support this all the way from Take-off at Logan to NYC to include an imaginary swap... With this kind of rhetoric what you think or espouse is irrelevant anyway. You are no danger to anyone but yourself...


Originally posted by Reheat
Of course, you again selected a photo with light reflections on the bottom of the aircraft. And you're right it wasn't a 757, it was a 767.



Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
Again, I didn't select the photo. It was a still shot from a CNN video. Other videos of the plane also show the anomoly from different angles. A Spanish university performed a digital analysis of the video and concluded that it was an actual object mounted below the plane, not a trick of light and shadow. I'm curious, did you watch the video I posted? But you are right about it being a 767. That changes everything. Maybe 767's have no windows and pods mounted to the starboard side of the fuselage.


Again, I was actually trying to be helpful and save you embarrassment. Pod people are no longer a danger. Even others within the "truth cult" realized this was false in about 2006,,,.


Originally posted by Reheat
Not they didn't at all. All that was proven was that pfffft does not understand how ACARS works. You do realize that pffft is one of the most discredited groups in the "truth cult". Their crap is even rejected by most other "truther" goups.



Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
I should have figured they were just a bunch of low down, no good, dirty liars. Pilots are such unreliable and disreputable people. Next time I'll just believe what the Federal Government tells me. They wouldn't lie to me. I'm sure that any day now they will find those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


No, not all pilots are "dirty liars" at all, just the jerk who runs pffft. Now, that's cute as if WMD in Iraq has anything to do with this issue. I think your thoughts are confused, but it's very typical.


Originally posted by Reheat
You really need to catch up. That crap was from one of the first versions of Loose Change, a work of fiction. It was refuted as total garbage back in about 2006. In fact, it was omitted from later versions of Loose Change because the idiots that made it realized it was false information...



Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
Wow, I guess I really do need to catch up. I guess there is no way the Federal Government would try to pull a false flag operation on the American people. Especially one that seemed to match Operation Northwoods so closely. Saudis with boxcutters taking orders from a guy in a cave in Afghanistan on an iron lung outsmarting the entire US Air Defense just makes so much more sense.


Well, I see you've managed to sneak many of the standard "truther myths" into your bickering. How original! You really need new material that stuff is old and out of date. Thanks for saving me the time of further responses to your irrelevant nonsense. Toodle-de-doo
edit on 8-7-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-7-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 


Hay, you're the one who brought up incendiaries in the basement. I then asked if you knew how the towers fell. It should be obvious why I asked that.

I see you didn't bother to answer my other question about the amount of incendiaries required, since you seems to disagree with my statement that it would have required tons.

I guess all your doing is this:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





One of them crashed into the Pentagon, and it cannot be argued the Pentagon is a much higher valued target in comparison to the towers


They got lucky that WTC 7 suffered from the sudden building collapse syndrome... It had the CIA, SEC, Secret Service, and the Mayors "bunker" OEM in it.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Hey, it's been fun. Oh, and don't worry about saving me from embarrassment. With some of the things I've done in my time, whew!


Anyway, I'm sure the intelligent members here at ATS can examine the videos I posted, and match them against the source material that you posted, and come to their own conclusions. There's nothing like thorough examination of the available evidence, and a civil, open exchange of ideas to foster truth and understanding.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

I see you didn't bother to answer my other question about the amount of incendiaries required, since you seems to disagree with my statement that it would have required tons.



2 trucks, 1 for each tower. Proper placement and timing. If you believe the 'official' statements about the 1993 WTC attack, the truck bomb wasn't in the right spot otherwise it would have been successful.

As far as incendiaries go, I'm not privy to the latest advancements in this field. I guess you are, so why would it take 24 tractor trailers for each tower?

PS: In the video you attached, I get it that I'm the monkey. Are you the one taunting the poor caged animal?
edit on 7/8/2012 by infinityoreilly because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 


Oh, I'm not an expert at all in how much incendiary material it would take on the towers. No one has ever shown how that would work in the first place...

However, one who's touting it says:
"Several Tons of Thermite---- It's a big job.";
- Richard Gage in reference to WTC-7

It's in a video, so if you want to verify he said it here's the LINK to the video...

Quite obvious the main towers would take significantly more, but I didn't mention 24 truck loads....you did just now.
edit on 8-7-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
They got lucky that WTC 7 suffered from the sudden building collapse syndrome... It had the CIA, SEC, Secret Service, and the Mayors "bunker" OEM in it.


Thus the reason why these threads always gets dragged away from the OP's topic- truthers coming along and posting something argumentative that has no relation whatsoever with the OP's topic.

You do know nowhere in the "Official story" does it state precisely how the towers or even wTC 7 collapsed, right?

edit on 8-7-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Oh, I'm not an expert at all in how much incendiary material it would take on the towers.


Ok


However, one who's touting it says:
"Several Tons of Thermite---- It's a big job.";
- Richard Gage in reference to WTC-7


I don't really follow this person so, whatever.


Quite obvious the main towers would take significantly more


I thought you said you weren't an expert?


but I didn't mention 24 truck loads



While you're at it ask your imagination how one would get dozens and dozens of tractor trailer type container loads (a convoy) of "incendiaries" into the basement? Tip - Stealth trucks were not yet operation in 2001


?????



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Yep, it's got nothing to do with 'believers' comments and such. Darn 'truthers!



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1
They got lucky that WTC 7 suffered from the sudden building collapse syndrome... It had the CIA, SEC, Secret Service, and the Mayors "bunker" OEM in it.


Thus the reason why these threads always gets dragged away from the OP's topic- truthers coming along and posting something argumentative that has no relation whatsoever with the OP's topic.

You do know nowhere in the "Official story" does it state precisely how the towers or even wTC 7 collapsed, right?

edit on 8-7-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)


You started comparing the Pentagon with WTC. So I stated that WTC also had some very important agencies.

I don't want to derail this thread so I will be reading only from no on.





top topics
 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join