"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" It's not rocket science-COMMON SENSE!! VS DENIAL!!

Details are what make a truth. That is the major issue with many of the conspiracies. You cannot simply make a statement without proving it. Like how 'physics' were suspended that day. I mean, if that was the case, and the US government could alter physics on a whim, then why not do it all the time? Why do we not have transporters like Star Trek?

There were a set amount of hijackers. There was even one who was not able to enter the country. He was on another plane that blew up over NY a few weeks after 9/11. No one talks about that though. You want to talk about the same things that have been rehashed over and over and proven incorrect. Find one of the real cover ups from 9/11 and run with that.

The 9/11 Commission report was not a document to disprove conspiracy. It was created to show how, why, when and who. It did. It is actually a very good read if you read the whole thing and not cut and paste the parts that may fit your argument. Many will simply say it is government garbage and it is just something to support the OS but folks, there is NO OS! Just what happened. It is not the truth or what may have happened it did. If you want to prove something other than what happened, you need details and proof. If you do not have that, then it is simply a nice story.

Some of you posting I am sure were in grade school when this happened and i know that the internet is a cool place for stories but you have to learn separate fact from fiction.

Silicis n Volvo
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

I have seen you arguing for the original story on a number of 9/11 threads. Mostly by nitpicking some unsubstancial details from the bigger picture to try and discredit the OP. and to be honest its irritating.

You and the few people who still buy this crap are just plain annoying.

edit on 12-9-2013 by Silicis n Volvo because: (no reason given)

It's not nit-picking, it's just chosing to call out in-accuracies wherever one may find it to distract from the actual narrative. In some peoples minds that is there way of "debunking" an issue instead of addressing the issues to the narrative that have yet to be explained.

It's a weak tactic but effective to those with little to no knowledge of the event itself.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by soulpowertothendegree

 

I was not really going to ever believe one reason was possible or that 11 hijackers were responsible

errr that would you believe 19 hijackers, because there were 19 hijackers that took those planes not 11 as you claim (twice) in your OP

Really before you make a thread like this at the very least get the obvious stuff right before you start off on the "OMG FLASE FLAG" rhetoric

I am reminded of this old adage: "Strain a gnat, swallow a Camel"

Truth is WTC 7 (which was 47 stories tall) "fell" in total free fall without being significanly struck by anything. Also note that this particular building was reinforced to allow sections to be removed. This building also housed the Enron papers. What was the biggest story before 9/11? The Enron "scandal". Does anybody truly believe that the world trade centers "collapsed" do to a airplane strike high up in the buildings frame? The only other time i've seen buildings fall like that was a demolition video. Why were no jets were scrambled like a normal event of this nature? How can a four story tall airplane make a one story tall hole (Pentagon)? To many questions that remain unanswered.

reply to post by Oannes

Truth is WTC 7 (which was 47 stories tall) "fell" in total free fall without being significanly struck by anything.

No that is not the "truth"

The truth is that WTC-7 took at least 13 seconds to fall and was only at free fall acceleration for 2.25 of those seconds and it was hit by something, it was hit by chunks of another building, "Significantly".

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I just see it as selective arguing. Ignoring substancial evidence which could shut down your argument and selecting a few minute details to divert from the big picture and discredit the OP.

putting the rest of the thread aside and ignoring the number of hijackers and time the building fell...Given ALL of the evidence brought forward to suggest the original story is a lie. Do you believe the original story and if so why?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


never mind what speed buildings fell at bud go out and ask people what time they heard about it i just got back into my pm and have one from a member in the u.k who says about 11 o/clock . what have you got to lose ?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


You are so right.

Some dentist from Cleveland states he knows what happened on 9/11 and he has the inside scoop and some bus-driver from Houston "confirms" it. Ridiculous crap. Too many people watching too many bad movies.

reply to post by Silicis n Volvo

Ignoring substancial evidence which could shut down your argument and selecting a few minute details to divert from the big picture and discredit the OP.

What evidence am i ignoring!

geobro
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

never mind what speed buildings fell at bud go out and ask people what time they heard about it i just got back into my pm and have one from a member in the u.k who says about 11 o/clock . what have you got to lose ?

Yeah your thread on that subject worked out really good didn't

If you want me to discuss that further then i will do so on your thread on the issue

Oannes
Truth is WTC 7 (which was 47 stories tall) "fell" in total free fall without being significanly struck by anything. Also note that this particular building was reinforced to allow sections to be removed. This building also housed the Enron papers. What was the biggest story before 9/11? The Enron "scandal". Does anybody truly believe that the world trade centers "collapsed" do to a airplane strike high up in the buildings frame? The only other time i've seen buildings fall like that was a demolition video. Why were no jets were scrambled like a normal event of this nature? How can a four story tall airplane make a one story tall hole (Pentagon)? To many questions that remain unanswered.

Truth is it fell. Of course it was free fall speed. What else would it be? If it hits something underneath it then it continues, based on the law of gravity. Nothing strange here. The building also was not reinforced as much as it simply had something built on top of it. A hybrid building. There was also quite a bit of damage to the building and fires that lasted hours but conspiracy sites do not include those pics. Just flashy lines like "FREEFALL SPEEDS!" and " NO PLANES HIT WTC7" and "PULL IT!!!"

The government does not need 9/11 to hide ENRON. Look what they have done since. Makes a nice story but no need. and, of course it looked like a demo. Buildings collapsed but that does not make it a demo...

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Oannes

 

Truth is WTC 7 (which was 47 stories tall) "fell" in total free fall without being significanly struck by anything.

No that is not the "truth"

The truth is that WTC-7 took at least 13 seconds to fall and was only at free fall acceleration for 2.25 of those seconds and it was hit by something, it was hit by chunks of another building, "Significantly".

And do you honestly think falling debris from one building would make a giant solid steal high rise fall into its own foot print?

i dont. and neither can fire damage.

reply to post by Silicis n Volvo


I really dont mean to keep plugging but.....


www.abovetopsecret.com...


In this above thread i have looked into WTC-7 in more depth than any other thread on ATS.

and yes I do believe it fell as NIST say it did.

nearly 30 years ago i coated a beam with waterbased fireproofing then used a 5or 6 inch diameter blow torch for 30 minutes on full power it nearly emptied the bottle in front of my then boss and a sales rep the piece of metal after this did not even look touched by fire .

so how three buildings fell is a big puzzle to me

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Silicis n Volvo

 

Ignoring substancial evidence which could shut down your argument and selecting a few minute details to divert from the big picture and discredit the OP.

What evidence am i ignoring!

forget it. I sure as hell am not explaining it all here I think you already know but are just playing dumb. I also asked you an easy question which you ignored

You all are not getting it. That building (I dont care how) was NOT SUPPOSED TO FALL THE WAY IT DID. Anyone who knows archetecture/engineering will tell you this. It dosent make logical sence. It matches a demolition perfectly. Your government(s) (U.S. and Israel) have killed you. And there still laughing behind closed doors to this day. I only seek the truth about this day in time. I went to a school where two wonderfull people "disappeared". I would like to tell his mother the truth about what happen to her son. I'll never give up this fight, because I was offered a chance to be on one of those planes. I'll never forget the lies.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


It just hit me and now I can see it from your point of view!

It is all about Law of Attraction. Damn, why'd it take me soooo long.

Because the criminal 1% wanted to get this damn train moving they needed a justification to invade the ME, "A New Pearl Harbor", only they didn't collude to make it so, nope they just wished it with all their lovely little hearts and because of the Law of Attraction, the universe conspired to make it so! Ta Da!!

The hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected

reply to post by Silicis n Volvo

forget it. I sure as hell am not explaining it all here I think you already know but are just playing dumb. I also asked you an easy question which you ignored

So you tell me i am ignoring the evidence, despite me being the one who is actually focusing on the evidence

So when i ask you, can you tell me what evidence i am ignoring,

you run with the line that i am "playing dumb" and refuse to provide me with any of this evidence i am ignoring.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Oannes

 

Truth is WTC 7 (which was 47 stories tall) "fell" in total free fall without being significanly struck by anything.

No that is not the "truth"

The truth is that WTC-7 took at least 13 seconds to fall and was only at free fall acceleration for 2.25 of those seconds and it was hit by something, it was hit by chunks of another building, "Significantly".

You say it was hit by chunks of another building what other building fell at that time to be "shooting" chunks?

Did another building fall at that same time?

reply to post by amraks

You say it was hit by chunks of another building what other building fell at that time to be "shooting" chunks?

I am quite obviously talking about the North Tower, when that tower collapsed derbies form it hit WTC-7, please see the above link for more information.