Mainstream journalists expose 9/11 hoax

page: 3
101
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

olaru12


The obvious attempts at censorship, even here at ATS doesn't give me much confidence in the alternative media either. You can't believe anything or anybody.

edit on 21-10-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)


yup you got that right. this place is screwed. gotta find somewhere else. please help




posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by AussieDingus
 


You sir have said it well.

Thank you.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Well, doesn't take much to know there were lies on 9/11 being repeated on national television.... repeated until the masses (at the time and even now) consider it to be truth.

Long live the official story!


until its.. eventual unraveling.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

VoidHawk
If I make a thread about Free energy it'll quickly be flooded with skeptics preaching the laws of physics.
Point to the free fall speed of the towers and those same skeptics IGNORE the laws of physics!

Four separate universities recently completed a study that looked at the OS believers and those who dont believe the OS.
They found that those who believe the OS are unwilling to accept anything other than the OS, where'as the non believers of the OS are willing to explore any avenue in their search for truth.
The OS believers were found to be very hostile compared to the non OS believers.
Its an interesting read

These four different university studies listed below reveal a lot about the psychology of official story ‘gatekeepers’ and how irrational and emotionally unstable they become when challenged with an alternative view…


The top of the tower broke off THE WHOLE WORLD SAW IT HAPPEN!!
That top section then accelerated downwards at free fall speed. Every single floor of the tower MUST slow it down, yet on that day it didn't!
there's only ONE way that can happen, and that is they blew the tower to pieces as it fell.

It dont matter where you get your news, it dont matter what books you read, it dont matter who you are, that tower WAS blown apart!


Great post Void!
Nothing to add but agreement.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin










sites like ATS needs skeptics.


But for skeptics to be successful they need to drop the arrogant, snotty, talking down to those they disagree with, the name calling and the lame sarcasm. I get the feeling that a lot of skeptics/debunkers could care less about changing anyone else's mind; they just get off on insulting others to try and inflate their own egos. It's not really about the subject being discussed; it's about winning the argument as they perceive it.

It also help to post a link every now and then to back up what you post; otherwise you have no credibility as far as I'm concerned. Just because you say it and you believe it....doesn't make it true, it's just an opinion.[
edit on 21-10-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I hope this isn't getting too far off topic. I was wondering if, in your research, you've come across any explanation, one way or the other, for this.



Sorry, I must be embedding wrong or something.

www.youtube.com...

There was definately a piece of external equipment mounted to the fuselage of Flight 175. What was it and why was it attatched to a plane that just happened to be involved in 9/11?

edit on 21-10-2013 by VictorVonDoom because: couldn't get video to embed



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   

VoidHawk
If I make a thread about Free energy it'll quickly be flooded with skeptics preaching the laws of physics.
Point to the free fall speed of the towers and those same skeptics IGNORE the laws of physics!


The collapse of the towers look exactly what laws of physics predict. The laws of physics say that all towers after lower support has been breached will fall at the same speed. What other speed would there be?



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


Interesting video. Thanks.



www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   

VictorVonDoom

I hope this isn't getting too far off topic. I was wondering if, in your research, you've come across any explanation, one way or the other, for this.



There was no exterior equipment on the aircraft. It was only the wing to body fairing as seen in the drawing below


If there was an external piece on the aircraft at that position the wheel retracts would not be able to function. So the aircraft could not take off and retract the gear as shown in the videos they are presenting as evidence.



The flash that occurred on impact is most likely the "crew oxygen bottle on right side of E & E compartment" exploding.





posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I agree that the lies we are told these days and not only that but the volume of lies we get makes me physically sick, you only need to watch a politician for a couple of seconds to know deep down in your heart that they are speaking absolute bull, there words are never even near to the truth of what they are actually doing, infact most of the time when a politician talks it is just absolute nonsense that comes out of there mouths and yet people watch there lips move and hear this stuff and they swallow it and even support it, seriously most of my time nowadays I am just walking around dumb founded at it all, it's like a creepy mushroom trip I cant get out of, life is just like a Hollywood movie set everything looks pretty cool and sparkly but if you look real close that fruit bowls made of rubber.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
A little understanding about the profits made by Silverstein, and the actions of Zakheim, the apparent demolitions of the 3 buildings, the resultant war against enemies of Israel and most people would come to the same conclusion.

Hersh is too famous to be "suicided", but he needs to be careful about accidents and illness over the next 3-4 months. He's probably been convinced for a decade, but just decided to speak.



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Tusks
 


Here we go again.

A long time ago I read somebody's description of the structure of anti-Jewish bigotry throughout the centuries:

1) Find something evil in the events of the day.
2) blame it on the Jews.

I used to believe that this was simplistic and hysterical naievete.

Now I realize that it was spot on.
edit on 22-10-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   
So, as I reading through these comments something sparked a memory from that day.

I can't at this moment remember where the flights that crashed into the towers originated from. But let's assume that what crashed into the buildings were not commercial airliners and were something else. It got me thinking what happened to the missing planes if they didn't actually crash into the towers then?
Then I had a flashback to 9/11.

I had just left school, so the time frame would've been around 2:30pm. A friend and I had pulled into a gas station and it was insanity because gas had shot up to over $4/ gallon. The station was packed so I started sky gazing, and I saw a plane flying over us, going from east to west. I said to my friend I thought it was weird because I thought all flights had been suspended at that point.
I still wonder who or what was on that plane.

Sorry for being all over the place, my thoughts are very unorganized. Just wanted to throw that out there. Peace.


ETA: I always thought it was strange too that people like that reporter from Penn said there was no luggage or plane debris, but they somehow managed to find one of the hijackers passports??
edit on 22-10-2013 by casijones because: forgot to mention...



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 





The collapse of the towers look exactly what laws of physics predict. The laws of physics say that all towers after lower support has been breached will fall at the same speed. What other speed would there be?


Could you clarify that a bit? What "lower support" was "breached"? Are you saying that, according to the laws of physics, highrise buildings can only exist in two states...either static, or in vertical freefall.....?



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   

DeadSeraph
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


To be honest, most of us already feel there is nothing to debate. Thats why most of us don't bother posting in 9/11 threads. The loudest and most persistent people in this particular forum are the OS parrots. The rest of us don't even bother because it's obvious if you still buy the OS after 12 years, you will not be persuaded to change your mind. Ever. To some extent this goes both ways, but as someone who originally believed the OS and then later changed his mind, I can say that I don't suffer from confirmation bias.

To me the only real debate lies in what really happened and who was really responsible. If the U.S government was simply criminally negligent, complicit, or actively participated. In that regard, I am satisfied to admit that I don't know, and that we probably never will (unless by some miracle the U.S government decides to release EVERYTHING with no strings attached or information redacted).

So in summary, I don't think the 9/11 forums would be boring at all without the skeptics. We might actually get to discuss the issues I mentioned in the second paragraph without having threads derailed for a change.


Excellent post! I agree with you entirely. After all these years it is indeed pointless debating the incompetent, or whatever they are.

One thing that baffles me is why the OS defenders are so interested in the 'conspiracy theories'? Why would anyone spend huge amounts of their time studying something they have already dismissed? I have been waiting years for a reasonable answer from them.



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Come on people, it's a known fact planes were involved in all of the 9/11 events. The flight which crashed in Penn. crashed due to being shot down. The Pentagon was hit by a plane. The towers were both hit by planes. There's no question a plane was involved in all of these events. The one and only question is WHO WAS BEHIND THESE PLANS?
edit on 22-10-2013 by SeriousIndividual because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   

soulwaxer
I have been waiting years for a reasonable answer from them.


I have been waiting years for the Truth movement to put together all their truther facts and tell us what happened on 9/11 in a way that doesn't make me giggle.

When you put all the truther facts together you get something like this:



Everyone will eventually know that al-Qaeda never existed, acted under the control of the US Government and acted on its own initiative but with the passive complicity of the US Government to hijack planes, not hijack planes and try but fail to hijack planes, that the US Government, a small rogue element within the US Government, and Mossad operating without the knowledge of the US Government crashed the planes into the towers under remote control, crashed different planes into the towers undeer remote control, didn't crash any planes into the towers but projected holograms of the planes crashing into the towers, and didn't crash or project anything but convinced everyone that planes hit the towers by showing it to them on TV, after which the towers were blown up by explosives that made lots of explosions that everybody heard, weakened by thermite silently which explains why nobody heard any explosions, blown up by nuclear weapons in the cellar which started collapses from the top, and turned entirely to dust by energy beams from space which is why there was no debris, and that the debris pile was then kept hot for months by thermite that hadn't reacted when it all reacted to bring the towers down, and all the steel that wasn't there was immediately taken to China which is why the steel recovered shows signs of explosives, melting and dustification, and a plane, a missile, a different plane and a hologram all crashed into the Pentagon except that it was only one of them, or pulled up at the last second and flew over the Pentagon, leaving a neat 12 foot hole that caused 90 feet of the bit of the wall that had recently been reinforced to collapse, and another plane was shot down at Shanksville then landed in Cleveland leaving no wreckage at Shanksville that was spread out over too large an area to be from a crash even though it didn't exist. That's what really happened, and some day everyone will figure out how obvious it all is.

Dave Rogers


It's been a couple of years since I asked you to put the facts together, are you able to do it now?



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   

SeriousIndividual
The flight which crashed in Penn. crash due to being shot down.


Flt 93 was intact when it hit the ground. It was not shot down.



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


Thank you for your question.

Like you said, it is off-topic.

But, this video here does pretty much explain it, or at least most of it



If you want to discuss this further, might i suggest you create a thread on it and I will gladly discuss it further with you.



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


A column is overloaded dynamically (a fancy word from being hit from the top with something above it's load bearing capacity), and a wave travels at the speed of sound in the material downward busting the support structure lower down.

A column has to hold up more weight at the bottom than the top because of it's self weight (remember buildings are extremely heavy) so it's natural to fail near the bottom when there's an added load. Now there's not much holding up the building since it all falling down. Falling straight down is the 'natural state' of buildings unless everything is going just right.


Controlled demolition is designed to fall down in a way that does not damage anything nearby. That didn't happen at WTC obviously. And it wasn't a bomb either.

The conspiracy theory doesn't make sense either. If it had been Darth Cheney and his wicked buddies plan to murder their own constituents, they would have parked truck bombs in the bottom, just like the previous time, and blamed it on Saddam's men. No aircraft. And not attack the Pentagon, obviously. The actual conspiracy is front of everybody's face now, and has logic and mountains of evidence for it: transforming a war in Afghanistan to a flimsy excuse to get Saddam which is by all accounts what they were obsessed about from the start, not Afghanistan.

It was Osama's admitted conspiracy to attack the USA in the hopes that there would be such a disproportionate response that the Muslim world would revolt against their strongmen and unify to form a glorious Islamic Caliphate. He was completely wrong; after the Taliban lost control far more rapidly than he imagined (he was thinking about the USSR) the West and USA in particular had great support and sympathy. The Iraq war blew that all up for the USA but the Caliphate sure isn't coming, because the Iraq war triggered Sunni vs Shia conflict and boosted Iran's standing & power; and the popular Salafist revolution didn't turn out to be so universally loved either. But what did you expect? Osama was a dangerous and delusional ideologue.

Now, why was a certain faction so obsessed with Getting Saddam? They were so strategically wrong. The only real reason I can fathom is that they really were after the oil. Not in the sense of "US covets Iraq's oil" but really in the sense of "My buddies covet getting enormously rich from oil service contracts". Actual personal gain for their class. Saddam was perfectly willing to pump as much oil as he could---it was the USA who was stopping him from doing so! But he didn't let foreign firms make money doing so. The conspiracy theory that it was for Israel's sake doesn't make sense either---Israel was worried much more about Iran b/c of Hezbollah and nukes, and Saddam was good for keeping Iran contained.

Imagine no Iraq war happened (and no Rumsfeld/Cheney etc). Now what? I could imagine USA and Saddam starting to make some deals again. Saddam would be pressured by his own Islamic fundamentalists, but his regime had much more experience and success catching them than the USA. He'd capture some of al-Qaeda's guys for the USA in return for lifting sanctions and pivoting against Iran---back to 1985.

Arab Spring happens. Now all the ATS crowd would be complaining about the secret alliance with Saddam and how evil and awful he is, and how political Islamism is a myth, and how we should be supporting all the freedom fighters trying to overthrow Saddam and his Baathist buddy in Syria, and how all the stories of Iran's influence in this were a fabrication from the Zionist-controlled Lamestream media.

edit on 22-10-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-10-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-10-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join