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 Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by jprophet420
No, we invaded Afghanistan because they were harboring Al Qaeda. I am not sure why that gives so many people problems.....
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by jprophet420
No, we invaded Afghanistan because they were harboring Al Qaeda. I am not sure why that gives so many people problems.....
Originally posted by GenRadek
Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Swampy time to reboot. We are on SEVEN not TWo no floor mentioned, Get some coffee and get back to us .
Reading comprehension Donny, reading comprehension!
Swampfox was clearing up a mistake done by Twitchy in regards to the fires. He claimed that there were small fires in WTC7 and firefighters claimed they could take it out with a few hoses:
originally posted by Twitchy:
Oh yeah, you mean the fires that fire fighter accounts said could be taken out with a couple lines? Too bad the 9-11 commission wouldn't allow them to testify. They would have heard accounts of explosions and how the fires had mostly been supressed.
He mixed up reports from WTC South Tower and WTC7. Swampfox had to correct this. Do you ever comprehend what you are reading? And what amazed me is the fact that HE got three stars! Three stars for incorrect information!
Originally posted by GenRadek
Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Swampy time to reboot. We are on SEVEN not TWo no floor mentioned, Get some coffee and get back to us .
Reading comprehension Donny, reading comprehension!
Swampfox was clearing up a mistake done by Twitchy in regards to the fires. He claimed that there were small fires in WTC7 and firefighters claimed they could take it out with a few hoses:
originally posted by Twitchy:
Oh yeah, you mean the fires that fire fighter accounts said could be taken out with a couple lines? Too bad the 9-11 commission wouldn't allow them to testify. They would have heard accounts of explosions and how the fires had mostly been supressed.
He mixed up reports from WTC South Tower and WTC7. Swampfox had to correct this. Do you ever comprehend what you are reading? And what amazed me is the fact that HE got three stars! Three stars for incorrect information!
Originally posted by MajesticJax
Hate to dissappoint everyone, but let's use the old adage of "follow the money".
Who owns NatGeo?
Our same old friends who own the History Channel et al.
This will be a snow job.
The Audacity of Hope: Restoring Science to 9/11
Our government must correct all of the errors in their multiple studies of the collapse of these buildings. To do that, scientific integrity must be restored!
The Audacity of Hope: Restoring Science to 9/11
Crockett Grabbe
President Barack Obama's inaugural promise that "We will restore science to it rightful place..." sounds like good news. In our article "Science in the Bush: When Politics Replaces Physics," published on the web in September of 2007 [1], Lenny Charles and I pointed out how scientific integrity had been placed well behind politics in analysis, not only in areas such as climate change and public health issues, but also particularly in analysis of the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.
** We described in some detail in the article how the physics in the NIST Committee analysis of what happened in the World Trade Center collapses is wrong. A paragraph of it was quoted from our article by noted columnist Dr. Paul Craig Roberts in his September 11, 2007 editorial "9/11: 6 years later" [2]:**
Physicists have raised unanswered questions about the official explanation's neglect of the known laws of physics. Recently, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, a Caltech trained applied physicist at the University of Iowa, observed: "Applying two basic principles, conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, the government explanation quickly unravels. NIST conspicuously ignored these principles in their reports. NIST also ignored the observed twisting of the top 34 floors of the South Tower before it toppled down. This twisting clearly violates the conservation of both linear and angular momentum unless a large external force caused it. Where the massive amounts of energy came from that were needed to cause the complete collapse of the intact parts below for each tower, when their tops were in virtual free fall, is not answered in NIST's numerous volumes of study."
These scientific principles are a fatal flaw for the NIST Committee's explanations for the building collapses, as expounded in my Journal of 911 Studies Letter on January 29, 2008.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by jprophet420
No, we invaded Afghanistan because they were harboring Al Qaeda. I am not sure why that gives so many people problems.....
Originally posted by herbii
I'm watching it now..
they definitely proved it wasn't Controlled demolotion with available technologies to the public! wiht out a doubt, it is possible for a plane to have take down the Towers..
However.. i tthink it is still very possible that it was a controled demolition of technologies that are not available to the public..
Originally posted by mmiichael
Originally posted by MajesticJax
Hate to dissappoint everyone, but let's use the old adage of "follow the money".
Who owns NatGeo?
Our same old friends who own the History Channel et al.
This will be a snow job.
Hate to disappoint you, the people who published the Jones thermite paper and then the Jones-Harrit one are, respectively, Bentham and Springer.
Bentham is a known con vanity press run out of Dubai that publishes anything for an $800 fee. They've accepted a random generated nonsense paper done as tests.
Springer owns large share blocks in European broadcasting and was recently acquired by Bertelsmann, one of the biggest media conglomerates on the planet.
Snow jobs.
Follow the money.
M
[edit on 31-8-2009 by mmiichael]
The United States govt was in negotiations with the Taliban govt for months to build an oil pipeline across the country.
Unocal Statement: Suspension of activities related to proposed natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan
El Segundo, Calif., Aug. 21, 1998 -- As a result of sharply deteriorating political conditions in the region, Unocal, which serves as the development manager for the Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline consortium, has suspended all activities involving the proposed pipeline project in Afghanistan. We are discussing this suspension with the other members of the consortium.
This decision to suspend activities is consistent with Unocal's long-held position concerning its involvement in the project. For the past several months, Unocal has been reviewing this project with CentGas participants. We have consistently informed the other participants that unless and until the United Nations and the United States government recognize a legitimate government in Afghanistan, Unocal would not invest capital in the project. Contrary to some published reports, Unocal has not - and will not - become a party to a commercial agreement with any individual Afghanistan faction.
Unocal was instrumental in proposing the Central Asia gas pipeline project in 1995 and in forming the seven-member CentGas consortium in October 1997. The consortium was formed to evaluate and, if appropriate, to participate in the future construction of a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to natural gas markets in Pakistan and, potentially, India.
Unocal will only participate in construction of the proposed Central Asia Gas Pipeline when and if Afghanistan achieves the peace and stability necessary to obtain financing from international lending agencies for this project and an established government is recognized by the United Nations and the United States. For this reason, we strongly support the United Nations conflict resolution process underway in this and other regions.
We believe that the CentGas pipeline would benefit the entire region by providing vitally needed energy infrastructure, employment and training, as well as hard currency revenues to the several countries involved. The proposed pipeline is an example of a large-scale project that may, after the appropriate conditions are met, help Afghanistan move from its present devastation toward economic reconstruction.
Since the pipeline project was first proposed, there have been a number of complex issues that Unocal has taken very seriously. Unocal recognizes the legitimate concerns regarding the treatment of women in Afghanistan. Consistent with our core values and business principles, Unocal is currently providing humanitarian support and skills training to Afghanistan through CARE and the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Neither program is designed to provide pipeline construction skills training. These programs meet or exceed UN guidelines for doing fieldwork in Afghanistan. They include basic job skills training and education for both men and women, and elementary education for boys and girls. Unocal has also contributed relief assistance for victims of the recent earthquakes through the Red Cross and the United Nations.
Unocal announces it is withdrawing from the CentGas pipeline consortium, and closing three of its four offices in Central Asia. President Clinton refuses to extend diplomatic recognition to the Taliban, making business there legally problematic. A concern that Clinton will lose support among women voters for upholding the Taliban plays a role in the cancellation. [New York Times, 12/5/1998]