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.

 

Breaking:Russia Today News Declares 9/11 An Inside Job False Flag Attack. ATS:Time to move it!!!

page: 5
398
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


if this upsets you so much, ignore it and move on. maybe you can waste another 11,000 words on trying to convince all us idiots that we are wrong. boo hoo, in short.




posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GoKill
 



Fact remains 3 buildings, 2 planes... It's simple math really....


So...for a building to collapse it either has to be blown up or hit by a plane?

Fires were burning on multiple levels of the building for hours. I find it fascinating that the fires effect on the buildings structural integrity is not even considered when discussing the conspiratorial side of 9/11.

The amount of arm chair "physicists", and "structural engineers" Loose Change created is really a phenomenon worthy of study.

As a former believer in this nonsense I can say with all honesty that I had no real idea why I believed it. I can only think of a few explanations as to why.

1. I have a general dislike of authority/government

2. I felt special "knowing" something that other people dismissed as absurd.

3. I was vastly ignorant of the physical processes that were actually taking place during the events of 9/11 so anyone who said anything even vaguely scientific who held the same position I did was somehow in my mind infinitely more credible than the majority of the scientific community.

Loose Change filmmakers vs Popular Mechanics Editors

The amount of conspiracy theories that have developed since 9/11 (which has been the major catalyst for modern conspiracy theories) are staggering and are so nuanced and varied that no coherent theory can be extracted by its discussion. Even here on ATS I have yet to read a thread which gives an alternative explanation to 9/11 that actually makes sense. No planes, remote controlled planes, micro nukes, lasers on satellites, bombs being planted throughout 3 structures without anyone noticing, firefighters in on it, police in on it, the list goes on and on.

The fact that RT is giving time to some 9/11 truthers should come as no surprise to anyone. RT has consistently been a media outlet that brings up any left wing conspiracy theory it get its hands on. It the left wing version of Breitbart.com or the Blaze.
edit on 9-9-2013 by openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by openeye
 


Dude, i couldn't have put it better myself.

Very good post indeed.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Russia declares it so it must be true?


+9 more 
posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by openeye
 


Yet you fail to mention the droves of ACTUAL structural engineers that firmly state building 7 pancaking from fire violates the law of physics and is impossible and can not be recreated, however when you add explosives into the scenario, it accounts for all the dynamics of the implosion.

You also failed to mention the BBC reporting building 7's collapse 20 minutes before it happened, and actually being able to see building 7 still standing in the newscast they reported it collapsing. Come on man.......



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Helious
reply to post by openeye
 


Yet you fail to mention the droves of ACTUAL structural engineers that firmly state building 7 pancaking from fire violates the law of physics and is impossible and can not be recreated, however when you add explosives into the scenario, it accounts for all the dynamics of the implosion.

You also failed to mention the BBC reporting building 7's collapse 20 minutes before it happened, and actually being able to see building 7 still standing in the newscast they reported it collapsing. Come on man.......


This thread explains it all

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin

Helious
reply to post by openeye
 


Yet you fail to mention the droves of ACTUAL structural engineers that firmly state building 7 pancaking from fire violates the law of physics and is impossible and can not be recreated, however when you add explosives into the scenario, it accounts for all the dynamics of the implosion.

You also failed to mention the BBC reporting building 7's collapse 20 minutes before it happened, and actually being able to see building 7 still standing in the newscast they reported it collapsing. Come on man.......


This thread explains it all

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I'm familiar with that thread, it's quite impressive to be sure. The thing about it though is that it touches on more things than I wish to debate concerning this particular point of contention.

I along with many others do not believe that fire could have caused the type of structural collapse as was witnessed with building 7. I am not an expert which makes my opinion in the matter of little consequence, there are however, many others who are experts and agree with me.

I also do not believe that a news network can accidently report on a buildings collapse 20 minutes before it actually happens for no reason. This detail is very hard to discount because, it is just all a little too convenient and as for how many other steel structured skyscrapers have pancaked because of fire? Well, you and I know these have been the only ones. Odd.

Finally, I know planes hit the towers, for me it's not about whether or not America was attacked that day, it obviously was, my view is, it wasn't "only" by Al-Qaeda, there is far, far too much evidence, not speculation, not conjecture but evidence to say it was at least in part an inside job. The very least I am willing to concede is that the government had modest to complete knowledge of the plan and encouraged it without "direct" involvement.

I don't believe that however and that's being gracious.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by openeye
 


I find it fascinating that you believe a fire burning on multiple floors could be able to make Building 7 fail all at once creating a scenario where the building collapsed in its own foot print at free fall speed.

Can you show me other evidence of of steel high rise buildings collapsing at free fall speed due to a fire?

Building 7 wasn't packed full of polyester and cotton toys.

It was constructed with certified steel which had been coated with fire retardant material.
edit on 9-9-2013 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 





Can you show me other evidence of of steel high rise buildings collapsing at free fall speed due to a fire?



WTC did not fall at free fall.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin

Helious
reply to post by openeye
 


Yet you fail to mention the droves of ACTUAL structural engineers that firmly state building 7 pancaking from fire violates the law of physics and is impossible and can not be recreated, however when you add explosives into the scenario, it accounts for all the dynamics of the implosion.

You also failed to mention the BBC reporting building 7's collapse 20 minutes before it happened, and actually being able to see building 7 still standing in the newscast they reported it collapsing. Come on man.......


This thread explains it all

www.abovetopsecret.com...


And why should we believe you rather than these guys? patriotsquestion911.com...

patriotsquestion911.com...

Are your credentials more valid than theirs?



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin
You know the other day I put up a thread, its about 11.000 words all in that discusses WTC-7, i put months of work into putting it together, 7 flags and about 2 pages of comments.

Whats the point, why did I even bother doing that when really ATS doesn't actually care any more about truth, oh no, you guys are more into "YAY, YouTube Videos that agree with us".



211 flags & 150 stars for the OP can't be wrong!

Simply put, you can't be disappointed unless you have false expectations. The most popular threads are always going to be the stupidest. Sad but true



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Good point about there being no other buildings collapsing due to fire in the past.
Really, fires inside buildings aren't uncommon-- skyscraper constructors know better than that.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 



I find it fascinating that you believe a fire burning on multiple floors could be able to make Building 7 fail all at once creating a scenario where the building collapsed in its own foot print at free fall speed.

Can you show me other evidence of of steel high rise buildings collapsing at free fall speed due to a fire?

Building 7 wasn't packed full of polyester and cotton toys.

It was constructed with certified steel which had been coated with fire retardant material.


Well firstly the building did not fall at free fall speed, near free fall speed perhaps but not exactly. Secondly in no way did it fall in its own foot print (like in a demolition), neither did the other WTC towers.

WTC7 collapsed in a total of 13 seconds not the 6/7 seconds as many youtubers claim. The central portion of the building came down a good 5 to 6 seconds before the rest of the building.

And you can clearly see that the collapse was not a straight down demolition style collapse as the buildings around WTC7 were severely damaged by the collapse.



Despite a steel framed highrise building never collapsing like WTC7 did on 9/11 does not negate the possibility of such a catastrophic failure from occurring. The fact that fire has not been shown to be the catalyst of the collapse of buildings in the past is practically irrelevant, especially because there have been no other events similar to the ones on 9/11 (i.e. large steel framed skyscrapers being subjected to a bombardment of flying debris causing structural damage and fires that burn without hindrance). Not to mention that not all steel framed buildings are built the same or will react the same to different variates of punishment.
edit on 9-9-2013 by openeye because: clarification



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 





The most popular threads are always going to be the stupidest. Sad but true


Something really needs to be done about this because its not right,



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by openeye
 





Despite a steel framed highrise building never collapsing like WTC7 did on 9/11 does not negate the possibility of such a catastrophic failure from occurring.


It probably should negate the possibility of it happening 3 times in the same day though, shouldn't it?



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 




And why should we believe you rather than these guys?

patriotsquestion911.com...

patriotsquestion911.com...

Are your credentials more valid than theirs?


I dont even have any credentials and i am not going to pretend to

But I dont need any to know that A&E for 9/11 truth are a bunch of egomaniacs trying to screw the gullible out of cash.

I have seen their documentaries for example on WTC-7, they make claims like it fell in 6 seconds when it quite clearly did not. So these are a bunch of experts yet they make mistake after mistake like the one i pointed out, now I dont know about you but for a bunch of engineering experts i find it hard to believe that they are simply mistaken.

No!

I think what makes much more sense is that they are flat out lying for financial gain

You know you can become a "lifetime member" in the "founders circle" at A&E for 9/11 truth for as little as $100,000.

So while yes you might be right to say why should i believe you over these 1500 guys and its a fair question.

my answer then is this.

I dont intentionally lie to you like your to stupid to figure it all out for yourself and i am not asking for all your cash.
edit on 9-9-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I can't believe, after all the evidence that has been made available, that anyone can still support the official story.

God Bless ignorance I guess.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Operation gladio is about the red terror in Germany and Italy during the 80s. Turns out the evil communists were recruited and directed not by the KGB, but by the CIA. Acts of terror amongst commoners west of the iron curtain discredited and distanced people from communism in a time where it had some traction in the democratic system in Italy. The people recruited were firm believers in communism though. Also for the atrocities east of the iron curtain the CIA was certainly not to blame.

So 911 would be a continuation of an proven and tried scheme. That the services just keep directing, arming and funding all these groups that are labeled Alquaeda is just lazy and that the people are not asking questions beyond why should we conduct airstrikes for Alquaeda is more worrysome than anything else. People should ask themselves how come Alquaeda was conveniently fighting our wars when it wasnt dropping a pretext for war against somebody else in our lap?



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Actually no it does not.

The damage sustained to both WTC1 and WTC2 was far more sever as is evident by the amount of time it took them to collapse.

It took seven hours for WT7 to collapse.

WTC3 was completely destroyed in the collapse of both WTC1 and 2 and the rest of the surrounding structures were later demolished because they sustained heavy damage.

Each building reacted very differently to the events of that day.

Not everything happens the way it "should", and not everything works according to "design".



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
How accurate is this information? I ask because that is important - even if 9/11 was in inside job, which I think it was, claiming this is going to have to come with rock-solid proof (which might be hard to get, it often is when it comes to real issues)

because it could even be a moral pretext for war.




top topics



 
398
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join