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 Section31
Originally posted by illumin8ed
reply to post by Section31
Even if I showed you proof you would deny it.
I don't see any proof that 19 Muslim hijackers controlled the jets on 9/11, but you believe that!
Oh the hypocrisy.
If you showed me evidence, I would consider what you are saying. The problem is that you are speaking to someone who can tell the difference. You are telling everyone a lie. You would have presented your evidence right away. You didn't. You are lying to everyone, and you know you are.
You would have presented your evidence regardless about what others think. You didn't.
edit on 20-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by NWOPrimate
OK, I just have to say something here.
No matter what, there is nothing that can make me believe that buildings fall as fast as free fall naturally just because a plane hit it.
Well at least your honest. I give you credit for that.
You've decided that no matter what evidence is presented to you, you will not accept it if it contradicts your beliefs. That's exactly how an extremist believes But again, at least your honest about your extremist views !
Originally posted by illumin8ed
Originally posted by GenRadek
As to that video, look at it logically. There was an obvious terrorist attack. The last attack in 93 involved bombs. Hearing explosions in a building that is burning after being struck by a 767, is nothing surprising. of course people will speculate in the initial moments as to what it is, and the obvious thing they will think is "bombs!" I have heard explosions going off in a garage fire I got to watch a few weeks back does that mean there were "secondary devices" inside that garage too? Means nothing.
That is not logic, that is blind ignorance.
First you admit bombs were used at the WTC in 93.
Then you admit there were secondary explosions on 9/11/01.
Then you show your ignorance by suggesting those secondary explosions were "normal" without doing ANY investigation to find the exact truth of what those secondary explosions were.
Sure it could be fuel tanks, sure it could be transformers, sure it could be a lot of things including high explosives. GUESSING IS NOT LOGICAL. Brushing it off as "normal" without doing any investigation to find the exact truth is blind ignorance, and IS NOT LOGICAL.
B.T.W. people inside the WTC heard explosions before the jet hit. So how do you explain that?
Originally posted by Gygar
Interesting, after the posting of this topic I began to research completely unrelated material about ufos and alien technology. After enjoying a particular video detailing the difference between manmade and extraterrestrial ufos, as well as rudimentary synopsis of the actual physics behind them, I did what any avid consumer of hard to find information would do, check out the mans profile. There I found the following videos, which contain more compelling information about the incident than anything else I have ever seen and points very heavily at the who behind the inside job, as well as the how. I hope you enjoy the following links:
Part 1: www.youtube.com...
Part 2: www.youtube.com...
I would have made a thread, however I haven't even made 20 posts. Haha you |= |_| ( |< 5 won't even let me have an avatar.
edit on 20-9-2010 by Gygar because: (Personal preference on syntax)
edit on 20-9-2010 by Gygar because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-9-2010 by Gygar because: (no reason given)
Bentham Publishing Exposed For The Fraud's They Are
Submitted by Just dropping by on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 17:48
in
* Daily Paul Liberty Forum
Here's an excerpt
Earlier this year, Davis started receiving unsolicited emails from Bentham Science Publishers, which publishes more than 200 "open-access" journals – which turn the conventional business model of academic publishing on its head by charging publication fees to the authors of research papers, and then making the content available for free
As the emails stacked up, Davis was not only encouraged to submit papers, but was also invited to serve on the editorial board of some of Bentham's journals – for which he was told he would be allowed to publish one free article each year. "I received solicitations for journals for which I had no subject expertise at all," says Davis. "It really painted a picture of vanity publishing."
So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.
Read the rest here. www.newscientist.com...
So as the debunkers were saying months ago, this Bentham journal is pay-for-publish vanity journal and the fact that Stephen Jones got his little thermite paper published in it hold no fact because they were willing to publish a paper that made no sense whatsoever, as long as the $800 publication fee cleared..
After the first flush of enthusiasm, however, researchers began to question Benthams activities, not least because many of the invitations they were receiving seemed decidedly badly targeted. For instance, psychologists were being invited to contribute papers on ornithology, health policy researchers were being invited to submit papers on analytical chemistry and economists were being invited to submit papers on sleep research...
To add insult to injury, some of the invitations researchers were receiving were addressed to a completely different person, or the name field was empty, and addressed simply to "Dear Dr.,"...
By March of this year, senior health care research scientist at the University of Toronto Gunther Eysenbach had had enough. Publicly criticising Bentham's activities on his blog, Eysenbach complained..., "All pleas and begging from my side to stop the spamming, as well as clicking on any 'unsubcribe' links did not stop the spam plague from Bentham."
For others, the experience of being targeted by Bentham proved even more frustrating. When Professor John Furedy, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, received an invitation to be editor-in-chief of the Open Behavioral Science Journal he initially accepted. But after doing so he found himself being bombarded with further invitations. And when Bentham failed to reply to the questions he raised about the new role he had taken on he decided the best course of action was to withdraw his acceptance, reluctant to be associated with a company that behaved in this way. Even though he had resigned, however, Furedy was surprised to see that his name had been added to the list of editors on the journal's web site. And despite repeated requests to Bentham to remove it his name remains there to this day.
I too had by now begun receiving copies of Bentham's invitations — not because I was on its mailing list, but because frustrated researchers were forwarding them to me, and asking me to find out what the dickens was going on.
So I emailed various Bentham directors (including Richard Scott and Matthew Honan), all of whom — with the exception of publications director Mahmood Alam — completely ignored my messages. Moreover, while Alam replied, he proved decidedly unwilling to answer my questions, despite repeated promises that he would. He was equally unwilling to put me in contact with anyone else at the company.
911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit
By John R Moffett, Posted by John R Moffett
.....
Previously, the chief editor of the Bentham journal that the Thermite article was published in resigned, and denounced the journal with this statement: “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Despite supposedly being the chief editor, she had not been informed that the thermite article was going to be published in her journal.
The advocates for the nanotech thermite theory of the WTC collapse will never accept the fact that the Bentham Group journals are not actual peer reviewed scientific publications, but scientists all around the world are now convinced of the fact.
...
Marie-Paule Pileni
Adjunct Professor
Professor Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni
Director of the Mesoscopic & Nanometric Materials Laboratory
Chair of Institut Universitaire de France
University P & M Curie, Paris VI
Postal Address: Université Pierre et Marie Curie Case 52, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05
Phone: 33 1 44 27 25 16
Fax: 33 1 44 27 25 15
Website: www.sri.jussieu.fr...
E-mail Marie-Paule Pileni
...
Research Interests
Organization of nanomaterials in mesoscopic scale : collective properties
Nanomaterials : synthesis, characterisation and physical properties
Chemical modification of enzymes
Physical chemistry in condensed matter
Colloids sciences
Solar energy
Photophysic and photobiology
Photochemistry in gas phase
Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by NWOPrimate
Hahaha... Someone had pointed out that the guy changed his story.
Let's talk about the video. Willie says at 1:48 that he heard a "BOOM! An explosion so hard it push us upward!" But on 9/11/01 he told CNN it was a "rumble". And on 9/11/02 on CNN again he didn't say anything about any BOOM! How come he changed his story?
Sounds to me like someone wants to make money off the 9/11 truther movement. He is a liar. I don't need to go any further.
edit on 20-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by illumin8ed
reply to post by Section31
Even if I showed you proof you would deny it.
I don't see any proof that 19 Muslim hijackers controlled the jets on 9/11, but you believe that!
Oh the hypocrisy.
Originally posted by thov420
I believed the OS in the beginning because of the fear and anger brought out by the events that day. I have since changed my mind, mostly because of the near free-fall speed at which tower 7 came down despite no planes hitting it. Stated many times before, never in the history of skyscapers has a building collapsed due to fire. Towers 1 and 2 were hit by planes so the due to fire part isn't a very good argument for their collapse, but tower 7 stands alone as the smoking gun to me.