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 GoodOlDave
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I said it before and I'll say it again- if you conspiracy theorists were to ever examine your own claims in the same stringently high level of critical analysis that you do the 9/11 commission report, you wouldn't be conspiracy theorists, for very long.
[edit on 19-5-2010 by GoodOlDave]
MIT was critical of the 9/11 reports. They point out that almost no attention or thought was given to the theory that the South WTC tower would have collapsed based entirely on airplane impact damage.
"we do believe that the primary damage suffered by the South Tower via the initial impact alone was severe enough to bring it down with very little outside help. This is the point of view that has been given almost no attention or thought."
John E. Fernandez
Assistant professor of archiecture building tech program MIT
Eduardo Kausel
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT
Tomasz Wierzbicki
professor of applied mechanics MIT
Liang Xue
Ph.D. Candidate of Ocean Engineering MIT
Meg Hendry-Brogan
Undergraduate stuid of ocean engineering MIT
Ahmed Ghoniem
professor of mechanical engineering MIT
Oral Buyukozturk
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT
franz-josef ulm, esther and harold edgerton
associate professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT
Yossi sheffi
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT
source: web.mit.edu...
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Then there's RFK, MLK, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Oklahoma City, TWA 800, Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" -- the list goes on and on.
You forgot the oil spill in the Gulf of mexico (caused by haliburton), The moon landing (never happened), The election of the first black president (not a US citizen), the bombing of pearl harbor (allowed by the government), JFK (assassinated by the mafia/CIA/federal reserve bank) , and The holocaust (a lie propogated by zionist and the NWO), Al quaida and the anti christian/jewish islamic fundamentalist (all lies and smoke and mirrors from the CIA)
Why is it that every major event in this country has conspiracy theories to go with it?
Originally posted by JR MacBeth
In fact, these people are so powerful, they can make you believe just about anything that suits them.
JR MacBeth
MyBlog: Gathering Storms Ahead
Originally posted by iamcpcAnd yes an FDNY firefighter saying there is a bomb in the building is a powerfull source. You have to understand that there was a LOT of information flying around between rescue crews, first responders, firefighters, police, etc. One person says bomb and then everyone says bomb. So yes. Powerful source. One that can only be refuted by more FDNY firefighters.
Originally posted by Tussilago
Originally posted by iamcpcAnd yes an FDNY firefighter saying there is a bomb in the building is a powerfull source. You have to understand that there was a LOT of information flying around between rescue crews, first responders, firefighters, police, etc. One person says bomb and then everyone says bomb. So yes. Powerful source. One that can only be refuted by more FDNY firefighters.
Feeling and hearing explosions going off time and time again and "getting covered in silt" is something else entirely than just hearing loose rumors about bombs.
Your rumor rationalization fails.
[edit on 19-5-2010 by Tussilago]
Originally posted by iamcpc
And yes an FDNY firefighter saying there is a bomb in the building is a powerfull source. You have to understand that there was a LOT of information flying around between rescue crews, first responders, firefighters, police, etc. One person says bomb and then everyone says bomb. So yes. Powerful source. One that can only be refuted by more FDNY firefighters.
And refuted is exactly what FDNY firefighters saying, after the collapses and conspiracy theories, that there was no evidence that explosives were used good enough for you?
The source is the pen and teller bullSH*t episode.
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by JR MacBeth
Originally posted by iamcpc
1.So you give more credence to a couple of Vegas entertainers than an FDNY firefighter at the scene who warned passers-by that there was a bomb in the building?
2.Then you explain it away by saying he was just parroting other rescue workers?
3.Did you watch the entire video, with dozens of police, firefighters, rescue workers, WTC employees, anchors, reporters and eyewitnesses all reporting numerous "secondary explosions?"
4. Did you not SEE another FDNY firefighter say it looked just like a controlled demolition, gesturing with his hand the floors exploding one after another -- "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom boom?"
5. Did you not HEAR one of these explosions for yourself at the start of the video?
6.How much evidence do you need?
7.A better question might be, is there you can't dismiss, justify or explain away?
1. No I didn't give more credance to a couple of vegas entertainers than
an FDNY firefighter at the scene.
I give equal credance to an FDNY firefighter on that video as another FDNY firefighter.
"There is no evidence there were any types of explosive devices or bombs"
"when you enter 10k gallons worth of jet fuel into an office building and you have steel truss construction like the trade centers did they warp and bent and gradually it was more than the building could sustain"
Dan Daley (spelling may be incorrect) the retired fire chief from the fire station closest to the twin towers. He was there on 9/11 when the towers collapsed."
Glen korban assitant fire chief and assistant professor of fire science and technical editor of fire engineering magazine
SOURCE: the pen and teller BS episode
www.youtube.com...
2. I retracted that statement. Please read all of my posts. I only compared FDNY firefighter testimony to FDNY firefighter testimony
3. Yes. The eyewitness testimony that explosions were heard is overwhelming.
4. Yes I did. Did you compare the WTC collapse to a demolition? I can't help but notice the ones that I would use BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM to describe.
WTC towers:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
I was not sure if I could hear any explosions.
Demolitions:
www.youtube.com...
I had to listen again. I couldn't believe my ears. Could the difference between the WTC collapse and this demolition be that HUGE.
BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM.
I decided I had to watch another one.
www.youtube.com...
Flashes all over the place. again BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM although not quite as loud as before but 293857293857987 times louder than anything i heard in the WTC collapse.
Why on earth did the WTC towers look so much like demolitions but not sound like them?
5. Yes I did. Was that explosion after the collapse of one, two, or all three of the WTC towers? Why didn't i hear those explosions before or during the collapse?
6. How much evidince do I need to what? I have enough evidence to say that there are many experts and scientific evidence to support many of the truther theories. Alas I can also say that there are many experts and scientific evidence that support debunker theories.
7. The truther theories have already presented me with evidence that I can't dismiss, justify or explain away. Alas I can also say that debunker theories have presented evidence that I can't dismiss, justify or explain away.
If there are people are so powerful they can make you believe just about anything that suits them then how do you know who the sheeple are? It's becoming increasingly obvious that they want us to bicker back and forth about dust and booms and experts just to blind us from finding the truth.
Originally posted by iamcpc1
3. Yes. The eyewitness testimony that explosions were heard is overwhelming.
Originally posted by iamcpc1
If there are people are so powerful they can make you believe just about anything that suits them then how do you know who the sheeple are?
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Thank for acknowledging the overwhelming evidence for numerous secondary explosions. So tell me, what do you think were the sources of these explosions? I remember the early government party line was that jet fuel had traveled down elevator shafts and ignited in the WTC sub-levels. Good one! My other favorite explanation was the debunker SwampFox's -- igniting cleaning products!
And what about the WTC workers who heard explosions before any plane impacted?
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Originally posted by iamcpc1
3. Yes. The eyewitness testimony that explosions were heard is overwhelming.
1. Thank for acknowledging the overwhelming evidence for numerous secondary explosions. So tell me, what do you think were the sources of these explosions? I remember the early government party line was that jet fuel had traveled down elevator shafts and ignited in the WTC sub-levels. Good one! My other favorite explanation was the debunker SwampFox's -- igniting cleaning products!
2. And what about the WTC workers who heard explosions before any plane impacted?
Originally posted by iamcpc1
If there are people are so powerful they can make you believe just about anything that suits them then how do you know who the sheeple are?
3. Easy, the ones who mindlessly swallow whatever the government/MSM tells them without thinking for themselves.
Hope you're not one of them.
So, what would your excuse be for the other five or six times that there were large amounts of put options placed on the airlines that year then? Or did you not realize that the options around that time weren't the only time options were placed?
Suspicious profits sit uncollected
Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data. The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors -- whose identities and nationalities have not been made public -- had advance knowledge of the strikes. "Usually, if someone has a windfall like that, you take the money and run," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Whoever did this thought the exchange would not be closed for four days. "This smells real bad." Read more: www.sfgate.com.../chronicle/archive/2001/09/29/MN186128.DTL#ixzz0oaDFQqoa
Originally posted by MightyAl
I find it interesting how almost everyone prefers to focus on HOW the twin towers etc. came down, rather than on WHO did it. It doesn't matter HOW it happened, as either way, it happened. Nevertheless, everyone is constantly arguing about HOW it happened. WHO CARES!
The POINT is NOT HOW it happened, but rather WHO was involved with the attacks. So please END your arguments about HOW it happened, and please start focusing on WHO did it. No one can ever prove exactly HOW it happened.
It doesn't matter now if the plane melted the steel, which collapsed the buildings, or if it was all deliberately prepared by those involved with the attacks (aka the government). What matters is how can you prove that the government really did it? Is the manner of the collapse of the towers the only reason?
Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by iamcpc
Why is the fact that the BBC prematurely reported the collapse of WTC 7 a "shade of grey " for you ? What do you think it implies ?
Originally posted by GovtFlu
Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by iamcpc
Why is the fact that the BBC prematurely reported the collapse of WTC 7 a "shade of grey " for you ? What do you think it implies ?
You didn't ask me, but.. I always wondered about this.
One scenario: the plane that either crashed, was shot down, or forced down by hero Americans,.. was supposed to have already hit WTC7. According to the script it was to burn dramatically, then crumble perfectly.. when BBC announced it.
BBC was the actor that didn't get the revised story... I wonder if there are any vids of pre-mature announcements of WTC7 being hit by a plane?.. that'd be interesting.