Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

More LIES of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists exposed...

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
Your "proof" as it is displayed in the Smithsonian isn't proof at all. If you believe the official story, then fine, but to title your thread "More LIES of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists exposed..." is meant to be inflammatory, as well as derogatory, to people who do not swallow what our government is pushing. Your posts are condescending without swaying anybody, hence the lack of stars in your responses.

Your argument lacks substance, as does the display cases at the Smithsonian museum. Junk science trying to support the insupportable.






The images you posted, in my view are exactly the images and the points that need to be hammered home allways in these debates. Not that all the technical aspects are not important, but we get lost in all that and unfortunately the data tends to be above the heads of most people.But the visual imagery and the simple common sense of those pictures should be enough to make any person at least question the OS.

Of course anyone who continues to believe 2 planes can take down three buildings will have a reason to give for the stability of the buildings in the images you posted as opposed to the WTC buildings. I find THAT fact disturbing.

Thanks for posting the pics!
edit on 24-7-2012 by crawdad1914 because: clarification




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
Dave, what you have shown is hardly enough to talk about......
there were thousands of TONs of steel that nobody got to see, let alone analyze......


You are making that up and we both know it. There were hundreds of workers at ground zero clearing out the wreckage and not one discovered any signs of sabotage. There are an enormous number of photographs that show the condition of the wreckage and they show no signs of sabotage either.

I will say again- this display isn't any classified material locked away in some secret gov't vault. It's on public display in Washignton DC and you're free to go see it yourself...literally, as there's no admission. If you think it's fake then it's your obligation to prove it's fake.


THere IS NO other explanation to fit all the facts but controlled demo....


Rubbish. As I posted in another thread, there is an enormous amount of video that documents the collapse, including the very point in the building that collapsed first, and every single one shows the exact same structural failure due to overwhelming stress as these columns show. The only ones claiming "controlled dmeolitions" are oddly enough the same ones selling all sorts of worthless knicknacks on their web sites.


Truthfully ,everyone thinks you are either a goverment shill, buddy, or you are in denial.


Of course they're going to think I'm a sinister secret agent. Everyone that contradicts these 9/11 conspiracies is going to be accused of being a sinister secret agent. I've even seen one person accuse William Rodriguez of being a sinister secret agent for daring to say fireballs from the impact forced the service elevator down into the elevator. The conspiracy people used to think Jesse Ventura was an honest researcher looki g for answers, but after he started signing onto that "lasers from otuer space" band wagon, yep, you guessed it- he became a sinister secret agent to the conspiracy theorists. You don't see a pattern of behavior here?

You don't realize my words aren't for the blind zealots who use the "sinister secret agent" excuse to explain everything away. My words are for people who genuinely want to learn what's going on...or at least, to make people think.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
You do realize not everything you see at the Smithsonian is the real deal, right? The Titanoboa on display there is not real, it is a model. Suppose the Declaration of Independence were on display there. You could understand a situation where the US Government might substitute a copy, for security reasons, right?


Yes I do. I also know that when something is a reproduction, they specifically say it's a reproduction. The Viking Mars lander model they have in the entrance is clearly a reproduction because the original is still on Mars, but the lunar lander they have in the next room over is real because several landers were made that were never used. Oh, yeah, they also have the REAL Spirit of St. Louis plane, not a reproduction, because the name of the museum is the Smithsonian, not Elmer's crop dusting services.

Besides, you've seen the photos of what ground zero looks like. About five square blocks of downtown NYC was instantly turned into a field of wreckage, so why on Earth woudl they waste their time making fake wreckage when there was an enormous surplus of real wreckage there?


Point is, the Federal Government controls what is on display at the Smithsonian. So it really just boils down to the same old "truther" question. Do you believe what the Federal Government tells you? If they were to put a piece of metal in a display case and labeled it, "From WTC2, result of thermite damage" would you accept that as true?


You are making no sense whatsoever now. You acknowledge the gov't controls what's on display at the Smithsonian. That means the Smithsonian is uniquely qualified to obtain a real component of the WTC from the government for display, doesn't it?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914

Oh, forgive me, I was pretty certain I have read multiple times where you and other's pushing the official story have disrespected those who witnessed molten steel on site, by in effect calling them liars, as to what they saw.
But it is all good in the end, since you now are giving validitiy to their words. This is progress, and a good thing in my view. Thank you.


Now why do you try to excuse your fake accusation with another fake accusation? By now I've made it perfectly clear I don't "push the official story" by any means, and I've already posted what I believe the coverup actually is more times than I can remember. If by now it hasn't sunk in I'm NOT an "OS'er" as you're fond of calling your opponents then I have to conclude your intention is to unrepentently pass off your personal beliefs onto others, regardless of what the facts actually are.

If that's your bag, fine. I just wish you were more honest about your true intentions.


As to you'r specific question question posed, as others have pointed out the beams you took a picture of do nothing to further your cause. I echo others in wondering why you even thought to post them.



To point out the fake accusations THEY are making. This specimen isn't kept in some locked away vault where noone can access it. It's right there in D.C. for any and every conspiracy theorists to review, and true to form, the theorists are beginning-but-not-quite to accuse this specimen of beign a fake, like they do everythign else that disproves their claims. Specifically, I'm pointing out the damage on the beam. I'm seeing damage from loss of structural integrity due to the overbearing stress. Where do you see thermite damage (or mini-nukes or lasers from outer space or whatever)?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
Admitting to molten steel at ground zero tells me that this post of yours is by far, your weakest. You may want to consider some R and R., because that molten steel seen by many, is further proof of nukes. The same ones that vaporized steel and turned thousands of tons of concrete into dust.



Nukes? I thought it was from the gigantic storehouse of sandbags stuffed full of thermite squirrelled away in every closet and cubbyhole in the WTC.

What say you conspiracy people go off to the side somewhere and get whatever this REAL truth your're pushing ironed out and then get back to us.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


I see these so called 'debunkers' choose to ignore your photos, their OS defending lies fall apart with those kind of pictures!

Strange how the Oklahoma building didnt collapse eh, I'm sure that took a stronger hit than any plane could have done to the towers.

Those fires in that skyscraper were savage, and yet it still stood.

Case dismissed, we all know they three 9/11 buildings were brought down with explosives. People must think we're stupid! You've got to be stupid to defend the OS.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
edit on 24-7-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You are making that up and we both know it. There were hundreds of workers at ground zero clearing out the wreckage and not one discovered any signs of sabotage. There are an enormous number of photographs that show the condition of the wreckage and they show no signs of sabotage either.

I will say again- this display isn't any classified material locked away in some secret gov't vault. It's on public display in Washignton DC and you're free to go see it yourself...literally, as there's no admission. If you think it's fake then it's your obligation to prove it's fake.


I'm certainly not trying to start a debate. I just want to ask if you really believe this? Those hundreds of ground workers at ground zero were searching for bodies. The ones removing the debris from the area were getting paid to do a job. I'm sure it wasn't the first thought on their minds to search every single scrap of debris for signs, nor would they probably even know what to look for.

Let me ask you this? Why were GPS trackers placed on every single truck sent to drop off debris at Fresh Kills? Trucks that didn't have them, but were now suddenly required at $1000 a pop to have them? If it was just trash that had to be removed, it seems odd.

What is on "public display" in Washington DC is exactly what they WANT displayed. Are you free to go down to JFK airport and see the steel locked away in the hangers there? If there is nothing to hide, nothing to see, why do they have steel there?

And in regards to the "hundreds of photos that show no sign of sabotage".... do a google image search for "wtc steel cut" and see what comes up. Of course I know that the pictures of the cut steel will somehow be explained as "cut after the fact".

edit on 24-7-2012 by DerekJR321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
There is something here, if one floor fails, so do the others. But whenever I watch it, I can't help thinking this was demolition.
On a tangent, finally found some author who's used the 9-11 conspiracy theory. Gotta hand it to him, it's a damn good read!

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343153987&sr=8-1&keywords=dani+j+caile



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Those of us who believe this WAS an inside act and the government(s) had at least a finger if not a hand in it, would also consider they wouldn't put incriminating evidence on display now would they?
Whose to say this even came from there? If they are capable of trying to deceive the world, why would their deception stop at a museum?

Jesse Ventura exposed an airport hanger/warehouse full of these steel beams (refusing public scrutiny) so we already knew they weren't ALL shipped to China. Try to keep up with the class.

Sometimes it appears some of you are just now looking into this event opposed to millions of us who have been on this for 11 years now.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I was in the back room when they bent up that piece of metal to look like it had given way. Think people.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


I see these so called 'debunkers' choose to ignore your photos, their OS defending lies fall apart with those kind of pictures!

Strange how the Oklahoma building didnt collapse eh, I'm sure that took a stronger hit than any plane could have done to the towers.

Those fires in that skyscraper were savage, and yet it still stood.

Case dismissed, we all know they three 9/11 buildings were brought down with explosives. People must think we're stupid! You've got to be stupid to defend the OS.



FissionSurplus, posted them, I simply reposted.
I agree, the examples of those buildings and the pictures posted should give truth seekers pause.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ProV134
 


"Shell Game" by Steve Alten:
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343159594&sr=1-2&keywords=shell+game



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProV134
There is something here, if one floor fails, so do the others. But whenever I watch it, I can't help thinking this was demolition.
On a tangent, finally found some author who's used the 9-11 conspiracy theory. Gotta hand it to him, it's a damn good read!

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343153987&sr=8-1&keywords=dani+j+caile


If one floor fails the others do fail. They were build to take up to 2000% of their load, so they could take quite a bit of extra weight. So one floor could take the weight of up to 20 floors.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 


On another note, one of the aspects of this event that initially struck me as odd that day, besides three buildings falling into their own footprint, was where the planes struck the buildings. If the intent of the hijackers was to cause the utmost carnage and fear, why fly the planes so high into the towers? Aiming for the lower third or base of the tower would have maximized the loss of life by trapping the majority of tenants above the fires. Plus the damaged area hit, would have had to support the weight of all the floors above. If these yahoos wanted to bring down the towers and kill as many as possible, Why aim so high? Why spare so many lives?

Surely, aiming lower should have been a simple matter for these pilots, judging by the flight accuracy of these two hits as well as the precision flight maneuver evidenced in the Pentagon hit.

These pilots were amazingly talented it seems, why aim so high on the towers?



Edit: Thankfully, the planes did hit higher. 3000 lives lost trapped above the fires as well as the first responders trapped below was bad enough on that horrible day.
edit on 24-7-2012 by crawdad1914 because: none given



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 



These pilots were amazingly talented it seems, why aim so high on the towers?

Have you never seen a photo of Manhattan? Much lower and they would have had to fly through other buildings to get to the towers. Download Bing 3D maps and look at lower Manhattan.

By the way, the buildings did not "fall in their own footprints". They fell down. Which is what things do here on the planet Earth.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by crawdad1914
 



These pilots were amazingly talented it seems, why aim so high on the towers?

Have you never seen a photo of Manhattan? Much lower and they would have had to fly through other buildings to get to the towers. Download Bing 3D maps and look at lower Manhattan.

By the way, the buildings did not "fall in their own footprints". They fell down. Which is what things do here on the planet Earth.


Yes, I have seen the maps of lower Manhattan and ground zero. For pilots with the remarkable skills shown by these they could have aimed and hit lower. Plenty of relatively free air space aproaching the towers, expecially from the hudson river side.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


OK, whatever. So what's your operating theory here then? It must be an inside job because real terrorist would have aimed lower? What time shall we start the new investigation? And whats with all this expert pilot stuff? Sounds stupid. These guys managed to hit some of the largest manmade objects on Earth with a plane. Don't exatcly have to be the Red Baron to do that.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


OK, whatever. So what's your operating theory here then? It must be an inside job because real terrorist would have aimed lower? What time shall we start the new investigation? And whats with all this expert pilot stuff? Sounds stupid. These guys managed to hit some of the largest manmade objects on Earth with a plane. Don't exatcly have to be the Red Baron to do that.


If you choose to ignore all the evidence that has been put forth showing the sheer lunacy in believing these hijackers could have made these targets given their limited flight time and abilities I certainly will not be the one to attempt to change you're mind. I was simply stating my initial impressions upon seeing the events unfolding.

Peace.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 



Yes, I have seen the maps of lower Manhattan and ground zero. For pilots with the remarkable skills shown by these they could have aimed and hit lower. Plenty of relatively free air space aproaching the towers, expecially from the hudson river side.


Must not have looked very hard

WTC was ringed by 50 story buildings, many less than 100 yards from WTC






top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join