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.
It's been almost 7 years to the day, and within that seven years, I have not seen any bit of information, no matter how drenched in scientific knowhow it is, that could show me how a building with very fractional and relatively small (compared to the size of the building and damage recieved to other similar buildings) damage, no "raging" fires, and not hit by any 500 mph jet packed with jet fuel, could basically crumble with global and almost perfectly even collapse
Originally posted by dunwichwitch
More on the bull# meter. It can come in handy... but you've gotta calibrate it so it's dead set on neutral....words words words ...rant rant rant...more words...etc
Originally posted by dunwichwitch
My question really really becomes..... Skeptics, why must you disagree with something just to disagree?
Originally posted by dunwichwitch
Even the towers 4,5,6 (maybe it was just two of the towers.... it's been awhile since I even cared) where whole huge pieces of the towers fell right on top of....
had to be demolished and were not completely collapsed , even with all that damage!!! If building 7 was so flimsy, why was it an emergency FEMA command center, home to FBI,CIA, offices of several large banks and lenders and yaday yada and enron and security risks?
Originally posted by thrashee
Question for you:
If there really is a cover up, if the plane crashes really are so unbelievable....
Are you ready for this...?
Why wouldn't they just have said the buildings were wired by terrorists to explode, and forgotten any nonsense with planes to begin with?
Think about it: which is more plausible to believe? The conspiracy masterminds want to set it up like it's terrorists:
A) Get them on planes, get them to learn how to fly planes, hijack said planes, risk being taken down by any brave people on the planes, coordinate the planes to hit the towers, WHILE still rigging the buildings to go down, and WHILE knowing that even "laymen" (as you say) could see through the fact that these puny planes couldn't possibly take the towers down alone.
B) Wire the buildings to blow, and blame it on terrorists.
You tell me.
Originally posted by dunwichwitch
A) a second and more massive successful bombing and destruction of the WTC buildings just sounds too organized. I don't think people have been conditioned to buy a story like "terrorists have infiltrated our country, prepare for martial law" even in this day and age now.... I don't think the public of the time would've fully bought it
b) it needed to be epic as possible. Even the terrorists themselves needed to be seen as heroes of sorts... doing all of that and sacrificing all of that blood for their belief in Allah and Holy War on the West... wow what a great movie the Bruce Willis version will make in 10 years. In this case, something more Hollywood becomes more believeable because up until now, we'd never experienced a scenario as big as that before... and it had to stick in people's memories.
Originally posted by thrashee
Originally posted by dunwichwitch
My question really really becomes..... Skeptics, why must you disagree with something just to disagree?
Why do you think that skeptics are just being contrary because they don't agree with your theories? That's a condescending and arrogant assumption.
I already gave you a very good reason why I don't believe a single word of what frankly appears to be nothing but ranting from your side: it simply doesn't pass the common sense test. Since you didn't address my previous comments, I'll present them again: if there really was a conspiracy, why on earth would the powers that be engineer the heist in such an obviously (according to you) see through way? Why wouldn't they simply rig the buildings to blow and use terrorists to do so? Why involve planes at all?
There is a principle in science called Occam's Razor. It goes something like this: the simplest explanation is most often the correction one. So again, I ask you, if there was a conspiracy, which option is the simplest?
Originally posted by ROO-meh
"I'm not saying people are stupid at all... but I'm surprised, the part of me that remains the hardcore radical I was upon first hearing of all this stuff, the one that wanted to blow up the Statue of Liberty after seeing V for Vendetta.... I thought people would mostly be as angry as I was by now... "
Quoted above
May I ask what was so upsetting about your Statue of Liberty ???
thanks
Originally posted by thrashee
Originally posted by dunwichwitch
My question really really becomes..... Skeptics, why must you disagree with something just to disagree?
Why wouldn't they simply rig the buildings to blow and use terrorists to do so? Why involve planes at all?
Originally posted by dunwichwitch
Oh no....
Now people aren't reading things because it's not structured the way they were taught? Unfortunately.... your grammar teacher. I never liked the... woman.
Jesus, man! Kill the grammar school, brother! I'm not here to teach people how to properly express their chosen symboligy, man!