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.
Originally posted by tomfrusso
reply to post by vehemes terra eternus
To Manufacture a war? Sorry, I don't buy that. To spend billions and cost more lives?
What is there to gain by those who started it?
Sorry, it does not add up. Who benefits? To start a war just to start a war?
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by tomfrusso
reply to post by vehemes terra eternus
To Manufacture a war? Sorry, I don't buy that. To spend billions and cost more lives?
What is there to gain by those who started it?
Sorry, it does not add up. Who benefits? To start a war just to start a war?
Good Question
The truth is in that direction...
Good Question
The truth is in that direction...
"I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources."
Originally posted by patientobserver
Ok lets just keep it simple, can you just tell me about building #7?
what caused it to collapse?
Originally posted by prepare4it777
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
72,748 signatures. Get your facts straight
Originally posted by patientobserver
reply to post by john124
Right those questions have been answered many times, and each time theyre answered it doesnt come out in your favor.
Ok lets just keep it simple, can you just tell me about building #7?
what caused it to collapse?
Originally posted by SuperViking
Uh, mismanagement of the war in Iraq actually helped fuel the crisis that we're in now...so no, they didn't benefit. Unless you're saying they could plan a supersecret conspiracy to blow up the WTC and have no whistleblowers but couldn't even manage an invasion correctly.
Originally posted by Militant1
Left leaning liberial here who doesn't put much belief in to CTs.
How ever anyone with a laymans understanding of metallurgy knows that molten steel indicates that more than jet fuel and office furniture were burning that day.
Jet fuel burns @ 280 C in an open flame
Steel melts @ 1500 C
thats a rather large leap is it not? As in you need 5 times the heat you get from jet fuel to melt them steel beams.
you can't get around that friends. I have no dog in this fight as i don't know who melted the steel, but i do know they used more than jet fuel to do it.
[edit on 2-8-2009 by Militant1]
Originally posted by Militant1
are you saying that the steel that held up the WTC went molten from the wieght of the rubble of the WTC? I don't care about who done it just how because it doesn't fit. At the very least i feel a full scale investigation is in line. Especialy if steel used in skyscrappers will go motlen under their wieght, i would say thats a something alone that merits intense research.
As far as the CTs go, untill its explained in full detail and recreated in at least a model, then its going to look like someones covering up something. Its hard to not be concerned when the best the 911 comission could come up with was highly questionable. So instead of calling the "Truthers" nut jobs, how about getting some research going to try and better define what happend that day. Come on guys if there is no conspiracy to 911 don't we atleast need to know the reasons why the towers fell? Get the brainacks at mit on it, launch a full scale engineering test study. Lets get some of the best and the brightest minds working on it, after all aren't other skyscrappers also in danger of "melting" their own steel beams?
Seeems to me that the US goverment should conduct an ongoing intensive investigation... that is unless they all ready know .
Originally posted by john124
I go with the facts and evidence, which has been explained sufficiently many years ago.
Originally posted by john124
I accept the evidence
When the French, under Jacques Chirac refused to join the invasion of Iraq (as did Canada during the Chretien government)
Originally posted by hangerhead
reply to post by patientobserver
Conspiracy theories are enjoyable enough, but also it's fair to assume that they can also be debunked:
www.debunking911.com...