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 NationOfSin
reply to post by demonseed
lol... I see what you're doing...
It's all good.
Originally posted by demonseed
Originally posted by NationOfSin
reply to post by demonseed
If you watch any controlled demolition you will see that they are actually very different from what happened on 9/11.
Naturally, you do not want it to completely resemble a normal controlled demolition, so any smart person would set it up with more money involved, more explosives, and since the buildings are so insanely strong they had too...you are right though it doesnt look entirely the same, looks like they put at least 10 times more explosives in than usual.edit on 20-11-2010 by GrinchNoMore because: (no reason given)edit on 20-11-2010 by GrinchNoMore because: edit, spelling etc
What if ONE of the hijackers happened to go through security by the TSA...
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by demonseed
May I ask a question about this?
What if ONE of the hijackers happened to go through security by the TSA...
The "TSA" wasn't formed until after 9/11. Yes, there were very similar standards for airport security screening in place, since the 1970s (when the first wave of airline hijackings began, which began this nightmare....), these were all part o f FAA-mandated and other Federal (and International) agencies' mandates.
So....in 2001...and 2000, and 1999, and 1998......etc. Same ole', same ole'. "Security" was a joke then. IT is now a 'joke' in some ways (which I won't detail, for obvious reasons), but NOW it is also a travesty, as has been evident in the news of late, yes??
Point is, 9/11 was a ONE OFF EVENT!!! We were unprepared for the sheer audacity, and ferocity of it all. At least, WE who worked in the Industry. WE weren't forewarned, and were therefore vulnerable....WE had been trained in terms of PREVIOUS events, and the history of how they panned out...and that experience was used to devise what was (and this isn't giving anything away, since it's on the Web by now) what was known as the "Common Strategy". It was part of everyone's Security Training...everyone who was involved in the aspects of aviation, and the airline industry, that would be expected to come into contact with hijacking situations. Covers a LOT of people, not just flight crew members.
AND lots of others, on the ground, not always with the airlines.. (FBI, ATC, etc....)
Originally posted by demonseed
I honestly thought that the TSA always existed. Oops.
Official theory = Boxcutters bring down skyscrapers.
Ultimately, the "no-planes" theory, "alien death ray" theory and all of the other kooky theories are just as silly as the official conspiracy theory, when you conduct at least 10 minutes of objective research.
Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by demonseed
The point being that if you didn't even know that the TSA was as a result of the attacks, it's indicative of your over-all knowledge (or lack thereof) on the subject matter. However and with that being said, the TSA gaff isn't even the worst of it, as there are many fallacies in your stated knowledge of the events. Your OP is rife inaccuracies, myths and flawed logic, which makes your TSA gaff seem tiny in comparison, though the implications are obvious and that is that you are either basing your opinion on inaccurate data and flawed logic, or you are simply being dishonest.
That in of itself wouldn't be a big deal, as you can't really fault someone for being ignorant of the facts, particularly with an issue such as 9/11, though you also claim to be certain of a particular position (while mocking those with accurate data to boot), which ultimately makes those inaccuracies a much bigger deal.
If you don't have the facts, then it is not only dishonest to claim certainty of your position, but it is disingenuous too. To go further, when you have the wrong facts (that 10 minutes of research would dispel), then mock those who don't while being certain of your position, then you have less credibility than those anonymous bloggers pushing the "no-planes" theory.
The truth of the matter is that nobody can be certain of what actually happened on that day, as a proper investigation (indeed, an investigation at all) was neglected and any intellectual debate on the issue has been stifled and ridiculed. As another poster pointed out and as I always take the time to note, everyone believes in a conspiracy theory regarding 9/11, whether you believe that 19 hijackers pulled off the attacks alone or whether you believe that certain elements within the government may ultimately be responsible. Either way, you believe in a conspiracy theory.
Ultimately, the "no-planes" theory, "alien death ray" theory and all of the other kooky theories are just as silly as the official conspiracy theory, when you conduct at least 10 minutes of objective research. It does absolutely no good to point out the ridiculousness of one kooky theory, only to support another, especially when you base this opinion on data that is clearly flawed.
If you aren't knowledgeable on a particular subject, it generally is a good idea not to pretend that you are, especially when claiming others to be wrong. It only makes you look silly in the end. Sadly, there is a whole lot of this in the truster community. After all, if FOX News, MSNBC or CNN says something, it must be true as those are the entities that have been delegated to do the critical thinking for most. Punditry, the detriment of society and the bain of freedom.
All in all, it is pretty much a good idea to check your facts before proclaiming certainty, especially when you are making accusations against others for being wrong. If you don't have enough facts to make a conclusion, then it is okay not to conclude or to deduce that you can't conclude. It is much better to not have an answer, then give the wrong answer, especially when that answer claims that the other answers are wrong, answers that were actually researched and aren't based on flawed logic or data.
--airspoon
Originally posted by demonseed
#3 Fire does not cause buildings to collapse!
.....
Im not going to barrage you with explanations or theories, but contrary to conspiracy belief, this is NOT the first time a building collapsed due to fire.
Originally posted by demonseed
1) Towers 1 and 2 fell due to the impact. The weight of the above floors would easily cause the floors below to give way. If this was a stone structure like a pyramid then sure, it would not collapse this way. But because the floors only hold enough weight to hold "ONE" floor above, having 30+ stories fall will give way and cause a systematic pancake collapse. This is not an outrageous claim and is easily understandable. I never fully believed this was a controlled demolition(poofs of smoke dont indicate a controlled demolition) but my earlier beliefs of WTC 7 caused me to investigate this further. However, looking at it now Towers 1 and 2 fell exactly as they should have.