#1 Reason To Believe...

Originally posted by Connected


Evidence where is your evidence? Man I can play this card all day.

Do you have evidence that the list was not tampered with? You just told me yourself that they "left the highjackers off the list", and in the same sentence you claim that the passanger list never changed... WOW you have reached rock bottom.

*Snip* (Here's) the difference between the passenger list and the flight manifest. I have personally posted a flight manifest in this forum in the past...If you want to believe that it was doctored..thats your perogitive.

EDIT TO ADD FLIGHT MANIFEST


[edit on 16-3-2007 by CameronFox]

[edit on 16-3-2007 by CameronFox]
*edited for insulting speech*

[edit on 16-3-2007 by dbates]

Originally posted by Connected
You do know that in the NIST report they say all of their writings were created from "pictures and videos" right? Also that they had no access to any of the material at ground zero right? They also say its all an estimation nothing solid, right??

As opposed to the Truther thermite theory, which is based on hard scientific analysis of the debris.

You guys have no evidence of thermite. None. You have speculation. Seriously, dude, that's ALL there is to the thermite theory.

And that's fine if you want to believe it, but there's no evidence for it at all.

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Dude, you're the one challenging the official story. You're the one that needs to provide evidence.

NO you are wrong, its the official story that needs evidence, THEY HAVE ZERO.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Show me how you conclude that is melted steel from thermite.

I never said it was melted steel, I just said it was thermite.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Because the conventional wisdom is that it's melted aluminum. That's what Popular Mechanics determined, and I believe the NIST as well.

Conventional, none open minded to alternative motives, wisdom right? Of course im right. Also, you are aware they only determined that with photos and videos right?? Please tell me you knew that.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
The evidence on the sulfur is in the link YOU posted! It's talking about how Jones found evidence of certain things on the steel he received--sulfur, iron, etc.

Yes that same stuff you can find in thermite right? Sure is, wow evidence.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
As people have pointed out, to Jones and many other people, time and time again, those substances could have come from ANYWHERE. They don't in any way shape or form prove thermite.

Its EVIDENCE OF THERMITE. I didn't say it was PROOF of thermite.. FRIKKEN A GET THAT IN YOUR SKULL! It doesn't matter if it can come from anywhere, it only matters it was there! If you had any insite on how to debate, you would prove to me exactly where the sulfer came from.. ok?

CameronFox wrote
Where ANYWHERE in the Media, NIST, FEMA, 911 commision, ASCE, etc ..etc does it say these buildings collapsed from fire?? YOU are saying that...as do others. We all remember there were a couple airplanes involved that day going VERY fast.

Collapsed due to fire was the official cause of the collapse. The aircraft hitting the building was a separate incident, which the buildings DID survive by virtue of the fact the first tower took 91 minutes before it fell.

Another point you are missing here: The 9/11 Commission Report was THE report into 9/11 (that is why they held it). It was actually a public investigation into a criminal act (terrorism).

It is equal to a Judge finding someone guilty of murder after examining all the evidence. But that is where the 9/11 report differs.

First, they leave out whole bits that they can't explain (e.g. Pentagon crash is TOTALLY omitted from the report, including what happened to AA77).

Second, they make incredulous remarks on how fire caused the WTC to collapse. We all saw the fireball coming out of the side of the tower immediately after the aircraft hit. This was the "jet fuel" that supposedly burned the building to pieces.

Problems with this include:

* it burned up on the outside, so it kinda wasn't available anymore to burn inside anymore (we all saw that)

* It couldn't burn hot enough (it wasn't perfect combustion) so the temps are much lower

* There wasn't that much left inside, so how does that weaken the ENTIRE structure exactly?? If "jet fuel" is that efficient, I'll get ... a Gallon ordered - I should be able to heat my house for about a year

* Regardless of whether the fireproofing was "blown off" or not, the fire had to get to 3000°F to melt it. Jet fuel (in perfect situation) burns at 1500°F, but the combustion was "dirty", so its actual temp was much lower - about 500-800°F. Note also that fireballs like that generally consume oxygen extremely quickly, and only cause superficial burning to materials. Whilst this can be enough to cause fires to other materials, incredibly it doesn't actually burn very much itself. Most of it burned outside, and what little would have been iside, would have gone outside rapidly anyway (as the fuel turned to vapour) to get to where the oxygen was. If there is no oxygen to burn, it either smoulders or is extinguished. Where is the 3000°F raging inferno that is supposed to have existed?

Oh yeah, BTW, it had to burn through thick concrete to melt the metal.

The official investigation would have you believe that the fire was practically located under every floor truss, when in fact it would be sat on the concrete above it. Fuel doesn't burn that hot. I could pour it on my driveway, and the earth underneath (remembering that my driveway is thinner than the concrete in the WTC) wouldn't get hot (certainly not to the point that I could start melting metal).

The fires that were left in the WTC were office fires. Whilst at the seat these may be intense, they generally produce lots of smoke, and the heat damage is extremely limited (usually to the area in direct contact with the fire). The building would be OK though. The laws of thermodynamics state that conduction of heat is only 30% efficient anyways. I suggest you research how power stations work (pick any type you like) and why they use gases at the pressures they do to help increase their thermal efficiency. Convection currents are even poorer.

It seems that people are so keen to have an argument on here, that they forget everything they were ever taught.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

CameronFox prove to me that list is real, and hasn't been edited. Please also show me proof the passangers were on the plane. You know EVIDENCE.

As opposed to the Truther thermite theory, which is based on hard scientific analysis of the debris.

Yes. There are some fragments left (I think it is just 4 pieces of the WTC) which remain in a hangar near NY. That little bit was examined and found to contain the by-products of a thermate reaction. Not just trace amounts - it was covered in it. They also found MELTED fragments along where the beams were cut - exactly as in a demolition.

There is a video on Google somewhere; I have seen it, and know it exists, but with the attitudes flying around here at the moment (this forum in general), I really can't be bothered to spend the time to go look, just to be told it is rubbish/can't be proven/that it is fabricated.

Mirage.... Your entire post is garbage. I dont have the time or patience to even respond to you *SNIP* Please...go reread what you posted....do some research and take some time editing what you posted.

Thank you.



Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

[edit on 16-3-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by Connected
NO you are wrong, its the official story that needs evidence, THEY HAVE ZERO.

Uh, yeah, actually, they do.

And they have a scientific explanation that actually works in the lab.

Unlike the Truther thermite theory which would require an invisible army of super-secret ninjas to pull off.

I never said it was melted steel, I just said it was thermite.

You think that stuff pouring out of the side of the building is thermite? It's not. Even if thermite were there, that's not thermite. That would've been melted steel or something.

Conventional, none open minded to alternative motives, wisdom right?

No, they considered steel. But since no evidence of thermite was ever found, it had to be another metal--like aluminum.

Yes that same stuff you can find in thermite right? Sure is, wow evidence.

No, that's not evidence of thermite. Jones just erroneously concluded that it came from thermite.

Its EVIDENCE OF THERMITE. I didn't say it was PROOF of thermite.

It's not even "EVIDENCE" of thermite. It's evidence that there was something that put sulfur on the steel--which could've come from any number of things.

Only someone desperate to believe it was thermite would automatically believe it was from thermite when there is ABSOLUTELY no other reason to believe so.

If you had any insite on how to debate, you would prove to me exactly where the sulfer came from.. ok?

Drywall! There you go. I can't prove it any more than Jones, but since no evidence of thermite was ever found, something like drywall is the most likely explanation.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

Originally posted by Connected

Originally posted by CameronFox
Connected...do oyu know how much thermite it would have taken to have a reaction to steel like that? Seriously do you? I believe I do... this was also investigated and was said to be aluminum from the plane that slammed in there.

Yeah I do, a large tank of thermite in a large jet liner would do the job right?

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...............no, seriously. please please please please dear god please tell me that was sarcasm?

yer a marine, tell me you have at least SEEN an incendiary grenade go off...it looks like an arc welder no? well maybe not so blue but definatly very bright. so, if (and i hope to god you arent) you are serious about that statment....where was teh blinding flash what would have eminated out the windows of the impact floors looking like somethign from a sci fi movie?

and to jones's "sample of steel"...cmon, NO chain of custody. he DIDNT collect it himself. he got it 'from some guy that got it from a peice of steel from the wtc' (to paraphrase)

yeah hey guess what i got steel from there too, yup i sure do, wanna run some tests on it? what do you want your tests to show? ill hook u up.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

you are basing your thermite theory off a guy who's willing to take a random chunk of steel from some random guy and parade it around like its a piece of wood from the true cross of christ.

thats not just bad science, its horrible criminal investigating.

and you know it.

Connected... there comes a time where you have to agree to disagree. Could that have been manipulated? Sure... Do we have evidence that it was NO. the evidence was supplied...its up to YOU to discredit it with your own evidence or proof.

Do I have proof of bodies? No... but i did go to a memorial service of one of the passengers that died and watched his/her children crying.

I live in Massachusetts and know many people that were friends or associates of those that perished.

You need to start to get some proof here....so far all oyu have posted was accusations.

Did the thermodynamics part confuse you? Hopefully this will clear things up: en.wikipedia.org...

Laws of Thermodynamics: en.wikipedia.org...

Thermite burns intensely, it doesn't explode (I suggest you figure out the difference). en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 16-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

As opposed to the Truther thermite theory, which is based on hard scientific analysis of the debris.

Yes. There are some fragments left (I think it is just 4 pieces of the WTC) which remain in a hangar near NY. That little bit was examined and found to contain the by-products of a thermate reaction. Not just trace amounts - it was covered in it. They also found MELTED fragments along where the beams were cut - exactly as in a demolition.

There is a video on Google somewhere; I have seen it, and know it exists, but with the attitudes flying around here at the moment (this forum in general), I really can't be bothered to spend the time to go look, just to be told it is rubbish/can't be proven/that it is fabricated.

MORE PURE LIES! Thats all you have spewed is lies and garbage. Before you start posting, i suggest you have them backed up with a source.

Read the first 2 pages but too sleepy to read the last sorry.
I was just thinking...if it is possible to gain control of a whole country, orwellian style...as has been done before, and even continues to happen in some parts of the world,
why can't this happen on a global scale?

And if it were going to happen,
this is the only way that it would be possible.

I dont really believe or disbelieve, but if secret technolgy and power is in the hands of this so called NWO and they may influence the world akin to ripples in a pond...
I don't know, it seems a possibility.

But yes this would be the only way it would be possible for them.
So don't take it too lightly, because you wouldn't see, hear, or know anything until it's too late.
From what i've gathered that's how they work

There is a video on Google somewhere; I have seen it, and know it exists,

MORE PURE LIES! Thats all you have spewed is lies and garbage. Before you start posting, i suggest you have them backed up with a source.

I really can't be bothered. Go look for yourself if you want to debunk me. I'm not sitting thorough 6 hours of video again.

You say I'm lying? Prove it.

EDIT: It wasn't on Google - it was in a BBC2 documentary called "Conspiracy Theory: 9/11". If anyone saw it a few weeks ago, they'll know what I'm referring to. It turned out towards the end of the program that the point was to debunk the CTers, not support them. There was even a thread here at ATS about it.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Uh, yeah, actually, they do.

Show me? I don't see it.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
And they have a scientific explanation that actually works in the lab..

You mean they have a scientific guess that they fabricated to make sense in the lab?

Originally posted by whiterabbit
You think that stuff pouring out of the side of the building is thermite? It's not. Even if thermite were there, that's not thermite. That would've been melted steel or something.
.

So you have never seen thermite before? Because if you had, you would say wow that looks like thermite. Al you did in the above quote was straight deny. Deny deny deny.. no evidence to support your denial, just straight denial from the opinion area of your head.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
No, they considered steel. But since no evidence of thermite was ever found, it had to be another metal--like aluminum.

You don't understand.. You said "conventional wisdom". Meaning wisdom that is ordinary. They didn't use "unconventional wisdom" did they.. They didn't look for alternative explinations, they just looked for the most common explination. Example being... you see a car flipped upside down on the side of the freeway. Conventional wisdom would tell you the car was probably speeding and made a sharp turn and fliped the car. What really happened was, the car broke down on the side of the road, and a giant elephant came over and tipped it over. You see, you wouldn't have guess that with conventional wisdom.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
No, that's not evidence of thermite. Jones just erroneously concluded that it came from thermite.

Do you even know what evidence is? I don't think you know the difference between evidence and proof. Let me explain. You have a bloody knife on the floor. You have evidence that the knife was used in a stabbing, but you dont have proof that knife was the weapon used, because blood could have easly dripped on it. Get it???

Originally posted by whiterabbit
It's not even "EVIDENCE" of thermite. It's evidence that there was something that put sulfur on the steel--which could've come from any number of things.

Once again, you need to learn what evidence is..

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Only someone desperate to believe it was thermite would automatically believe it was from thermite when there is ABSOLUTELY no other reason to believe so.

No other reason to believe so? You mean the pool of molten steel that was burning for many weeks after 911 is not a reason? hmmmmm

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Drywall! There you go. I can't prove it any more than Jones, but since no evidence of thermite was ever found, something like drywall is the most likely explanation.

You are still stuck on "no evidence" no wonder you still believe the official story. Even though the official story has no evidence either..




[edit on 16-3-2007 by Connected]

Conected what many people dont realise about 9/11 is that some people will do anything for the beliefs they have in their country and what their masters tell them to do, there are plenty of people who are ready to kill their fellow countrymen and I dont me Muslim fanatics.

The fact of the matter is that the believers cannot handle the truth, it upsets their sense of well being and trust in the Goverment and the system which they believe in. Bush himself could declare on the news tomorrow that 9/11 was an inside job and they still would not believe it, they would not even believe it was the real president.

Its strange how these same people will readilly accept stories other atrocities past and present that have been committed by goverments around the world yet they cannot accept that it could happen in their own country.

Are these very same Americans forgetting that Japan was allowed to attack Pearl Harbour so the US could get into the war, how many thousands of Americans were killed in that event.

The very same people who say "our Goverment would not do this" are they very same people who watched their fellow citizens, men, women and children shot, gassed and burnt to death at Waco. And these people were American, not Terrorists or Muslim fanatics.

Are they forgetting that 50,000+ Americans died in Vietnam for a war in which they did not need to fight and die in,. A war that made many American companies and individuals very rich.

Connected you are quite correct, some of your fellow citizens are so far detached from reality that the Goverment could state that next week everyone has to paint their house bright yellow they would do it without question.

Originally posted by Connected
Yeah but Venezuela isn't as easy of a target as Iraq now is it.

Are you serious?

Conspiracy dorks?? Thanks for the insult.. Oh yeah, try to tell that to Bush senior, he will have you killed.

* * *

Dear George Bush Sr.,

I know you’ll see this because you monitor everything and are all powerful.
I don’t believe in the NWO and I kind of think people who do might be dorks.

Love,
Essedarius


* * *

Check back with me in a week. If I’m dead, I’ll concede the point.

There is no "easy way" to make anti-war Americans into pro-war Americans.

But there are certainly EASIER ways…

Option 1:
Take 5 agents and have them plant 5 bombs in elementary schools around the U.S. Blame it on Osama. (Operational Scope: Minimal, Operational Risk: None)

Option 2:
19 Terrorists, previously placed and handled by the U.S. Intelligence Community commandeer commercial aircraft and crash them into prominent U.S. locations. The FAA, under direction of NORAD, is ordered to ignore the planes in order to allow safe passage. The locations were prepared by the FBI in cooperation with military demolition teams to collapse. These demolition teams were allowed access to the building by building management who would be rewarded for compliance via massive insurance and stock payouts. Simultaneously, FBI teams in cooperation with Pentagon officials prepared the Pentagon for a staged collision, actually perpetrated by military aircraft firing an air to surface missile, by reinforcing the wall of the building that would be hit, and planning the systematic and strategic removal of light poles in order to make it appear as though an aircraft inflicted the damage. (Operational Scope: MASSIVE, Operational Risk: MASSIVER)

Please don’t dodge this question, Connected:
Can you honestly say that you think Option 1 is NOT EASIER and wouldn’t accomplish the EXACT SAME THING?

You are exactly right about "never cared about popular opinion". Thats why Bush was chosen to carry out this master plan. They knew a LOT of people would dislike him..

This comment is a buoy of confusion bobbing in the sea of nonsensical statements you’ve made on ATS today.

You put your odds on 21 men with box cutters. Against 1000? Why 1000? government employees with unlimited resources. Unlimited knowledge of security, intelligence, unlimited access to remotly controlled jets, explosives, and missiles. Unlimited access to roadways, telephones, powersources, and internet.. Wow, you are hanging off the side of a cliff, and the only thing keeping you up is a thin hair.

All the toys in the world mean nothing if, planning-wise, your resources are not connected. I have yet to see a CTer like you draw a coherent line of communication and command amidst the jumble of resources you just described.

Please show me though…I’d be happy to see how all these things worked in concert.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Connected... there comes a time where you have to agree to disagree. Could that have been manipulated? Sure... Do we have evidence that it was NO. the evidence was supplied...its up to YOU to discredit it with your own evidence or proof.

We can use logic to find proof.. Answer these questions:

1: Who exactly left out the names of the hijackers?

2: When did they leave the names of the hijackers of the list? (innocent untill proven guilty)

3: Did they take the names off the list before or after the government decided they were the hijackers?

4: did they racial profile the hijackers off the list just by their names?

5: whos familys were they trying to respect? The hijackers or the others?

6: why are some of the hijackers alive?!?!?!

Originally posted by Essedarius
Please don’t dodge this question, Connected:
Can you honestly say that you think Option 1 is NOT EASIER and wouldn’t accomplish the EXACT SAME THING?

It wouldn't accomplish the same thing AT ALL. You seriously think Americans wouldn't question how the bombs got there??

With 911, nobody questions how hijackers took over planes and crashed them. Unless they serisouly doubt the rest of the story.

Originally posted by Connected


6: why are some of the hijackers alive?!?!?!

so, if they had said that John Smith or Bob Anderson had highjacked the plane and then A John Smith or Bob Anderson then paid for a meal by CC and the waitress noticed, then........what the story is bunk cuz the highjacker is alive?

how many mohommad atta's do u suppose there are in the middle east? personally i have no idea, but is it at least POSSIBLE that some of these guys had common names?

even a little possible?