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 TrickoftheShade
Clearer, you mean? Well, you could learn to express your point properly. When your ideas are as strange as yours it at least helps if they are articulated clearly.
This is genuinely what I understood from your post. That you're asking if one would support a conspiracy theory if it was the generally accepted narrative. Leaving aside the pointlessness of the question, the answer is almost certainly "no" for the vast majority of debunkers.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Excuse me? If you "completely and utterly disagree" that steel that had been destroyed by explosives would necessarily show evidence of destruction by explosives, would you mind terribly explaining why? I think it's a given that the laws of physics need to apply to your conspiracy stories just as they need to apply to everyone else.
Originally posted by budaruskie
I believe there has also been a misunderstanding here also.
Of course I believe that steel that had been destroyed by explosives would necessarily show evidence of such. In fact, I believe that it has. Obviously, you do not. From what I have seen in past threads the primary reason for this is a special dislike for Dr. Jones and his work.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
There is no misunderstanding here. You specifically said that you disagree with every single thing I said and I'm asking you to elaborate, as disagreeing with *everything* I said on principle is a policy of faith based logic, not research. If you are saying you misspoke, I will accept that.
I cannot comment on what other people posted in past threads, but from my point of view, the reason is threefold-
a) the people clearing out the wreckage at ground zero were experienced steel workers, policemen, firefighters, demolitionists, and pretty much every othe rprofession that involves construction and security. Not one...let me repeat that so you understand...NOT ONE...of these people saw any evidence of any sabotage from explosives. Granted, the truthers are making up faith based excuses such as "super duper explosives that leave no traces" and "everyone at ground zero was a secret gov't agent" but this explanation is less than satisfying.
b) in addition, there were photographers on site, such as Joel Myerowitz, who took many, many photos of the wreckage at ground zero. None of his photos show any damage from explosives, but they do show damage from tearing like paper, bending in ghastly angles, and snapping like twigs, whcih is what would be expected from a structure that collapsed upon itself.
c) Not to mention, the truther movement is basing their position on just too many documentable lies. The claim that "all the steel was immediately sent overseas" is a whitewash of the facts, as every single beam, girder, and crushed car was sent to a site in Staten Island for sorting. Many important pieces are beign kept in a hanger at JFK even now. I've posted enough photos of the steel at the JFK hanger (which likewise showed collapse damage, not explosives damage) to prove that and I know you've seen them.
I stand ready to be convinced that there was sort of conspiracy, but when the truthers have been caught red handed at passing off lies time after time after time (I.E. no interceptors were scrambled, all the WTC bomb dogs were withdrawn, no Arab names were on the passenger manifests, noone saw what hit the Pentagon, all the steel was immediately shipped off oversears, etc etc etc) it's the truthers who are the ones proven to be thoroughly untrustworthy, not anyone else.
Originally posted by budaruskie
Again, who is Kurt Sonnenfeld?
Yes and who exactly had or has access to all of this evidence? Also, I'm not denying that you posted some pictures but truly I have not seen them.
You say that the "truthers" are a bunch of liars yet within the same paragraph you perpetuate known lies yourself. So I want to know from you, were interceptors scrambled or not? Were the bomb sniffing dogs pulled out of the building or not? Were there any Arab names on the passnger manifests or not? Who saw the 757 hit the Pentagon, what date did the steel begin to be shipped, etc.
If you refuse to answer the above questions thats fine, if you would please humor me in answering just this one. There is a lot of confusion when it comes to the Pentagon case. We know for sure that something did indeed strike the wall of the Pentagon. Some people say plane, others say missile, some saw the plane fly over here, some saw it over there, and pilots have come to a concensus that the official flight path and maneuvers were at the very least doubtful, some say pure bullsh*t. So with all of that said, what would be the easiest way to prove that a 757 did hit the Pentagon and not a missile?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Are you really using *that* guy as a source for your conspiracy claims? I mean, seriously?
???Huh? You really aren't suggesting that the public should have full unsupervised access to the remaining wreckage, are you? People will be hacking off pieces left and right for souveniers and selling them on Ebay. You know that and so do I.
a) Yes, interceptors were scrambled. A flight of F-16s were scrambled out of Langley in Virginia and a flight of F-15s were scrambled out Otis in Massachussets, to pursue the hijacked aircraft that took off from Dulles and Boston, respectively. This was already covered in the 9/11 commission report.
b) It was the NYPD bomb dogs that were withdrawn. The NYPA always had their own bomb dogs and these were never withdrawn. One of them, named, "Sirius" was killed in the collapse.
c) The hijackers' names were on the passenger manifests. This whole bit was started by that con artist David Ray Griffin who went by a released list of the victims, which wouldn't include the names of the hijackers.
d) The Pentagon was out in the middle of an industrial park and there were office buildings, highways, residences, etc all around, so hundreds of people specifically saw the plane hit the Pentagon:
Eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack
e) Since there's a sizable collection of WTC steel still in a hanger in JFK and NIST collected a number of samples of the steel for their report, technically the answer is, "never".
Finding the wreckage of the object that actually hit the Pentagon:
Wreckage from flight 77 found at the Pentagon
Originally posted by budaruskie
I was merely pointing out that to say and you made it very clear that NOT ONE person said anything to the contrary of the official story is not true. It is also surprising how you just ignored all of those other people on scene like policemen, firemen, reporters, and the average Joes that we have very clear audio and video of saying that there were explosions. Why would you just ignore them? I'm honestly not very familiar with Kurt Sonnenfeld but the fact that he was a FEMA photographer just conveniently disproved your first two points.
David Ray Griffin is not a con artist, at least in my opinion, but you are entitled to yours.
As far as the hundreds of Pentagon witnesses go, I have not seen hundreds of witnesses with a coherent picture of events other than they did see a flying object strike the Pentagon. That is exactly why we should all be able to see the actual original video footage for ourselves, so we can put that baby to bed.
As far as the wreckage found at the Pentagon, frankly its not at all consistent with what the gov't claims happened and it certainly doesn't help that they literally covered up the lawn ASAP. I've personally seen and heard clips where a man (I forget his name at the moment) who was a high ranking employee of Rolls Royce said without question that a component from the engine wreckage found at the Pentagon was not from one of his engines.
Instead, they chose a version of events that seems totally out of touch with reality, mixed it with very questionable investigation techniques, strange soundbites, and unjustified secrecy. Leaving many of us with no choice but to think we are not being told the entire truth. I appreciate your ability to discuss these things without name-calling and insults as so many others immediately revert to
Originally posted by budaruskie
Would you?
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Originally posted by budaruskie
Would you?
Yes.
But what's the point of your question?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I'm not ignoring it becuase I acknowledge that witnesses heard explosions. The buildings were chock full of flammable objects that would naturally go BOOM when on fire (electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, etc), and William Rodriguez specifically said in his testimony to NIST that when the plane struck he first thought it was a generator that blew up. It's the conspiracy people who insist these explosions were necessarily explosives and not an overheated fire extinguisher, which I find speculative since the explosions were going off randomly, as in when the fires were reaching whatever blew up in turn, rather than being set off in synchronization as controlled demolitions need to be.
The fact that Sonnenfeld is a FEMA photographer in no way makes him exempt from committing murder, and murderers are in no way immune from pulling every dishonest stunt they can to avoid going to prison. We have other photographers who were at the site in addition to Sonnenfeld (I.E. Joel Meyerowitz) and he has yet to show what he has that these other photographers didn't pick up. He hasn't proven why he should be taken as a credible witness yet.
I'm not accusing him of being a con artist solely on personal opinion. I'm accusing him of being a con artist becuase he's blatantly making false claims and passing them off as fact, and I can give you as many examples of this as you wish.
It has already been put to bed. There was a gigantic chunk of aircraft fuselage lying on the Pentagon lawn and it clearly has AA colors, and a guy in a nearby building packing to move looked out the window and specifically saw that it was an AA passenger jet that hit the Pentagon. PLUS, they found the black box AND traced the DNA of the passenger remains to the passengers on AA77. There is far more evidence showing it was AA77 than there is evidence showing it wasn't AA77, so in all honesty, if multitudes of eyewitness accounts, photographs of wreckage, and even DNA evidence aren't enough to convince you, then I sincerely don't know what would be in any footage of an actual impact that will be enough to convince you.
I know of that interview, but the problem is that he doesn't explain what he's basing his opinion on. On the other hand, THESE people are experts in the aerospace industry, and they definitively have identified the wreckage as being components from a Rolls Royce engine and they even explain why:
Examination of the Pentagon wreckage
I have no idea who that other guy is so I can't ask him, but since you're here, I'll ask you- why is he correct and these aerospace experts are wrong? They're backing up why they arrived at their conclusion and he isn't.
Thank you for your comments, but I beg to differ over the "out of touch with reality" statement. Islamic fundamentalists have been hijacking aircraft (and an occasional cruise liner) for decades, and their ability to launch suicide attacks is near-legendary. Remember, we're talking about a culture so fanatic in their beliefs that they'll even go ape-sh*t over cartoons of Mohammed in Danish newspapers, as well as sentence Salmon Rushdie to death simply for writing a book, not to mention, Christians in Indonesia being murdered for using the word "Allah" to describe god. The question isn't how likely they would produce these 19 hijackers, the question is how could they NOT produce these 19 hijackers.
With all due respects to the OP, we can "pretend" only so much, here
Originally posted by budaruskie
Come on Dave, really? William Rodriguez also said that the exact explosion you are speaking of happened BEFORE the plane impact. What pipe or transformer caused the damage in the video below?
I never said anything of the sort. I thought I made it clear that I only brought him up to point out that AT LEAST ONE person, who in this case happened to be a FEMA photographer, does believe that explosives were used. Can we please stop talking about him, its a completely trivial point you are making, in regards to our conversation.
I've seen the "gigantic chunk" and it does in fact have AA colors, but that by itself is not enough to convince me it was a 757. A guy saying it was an AA passenger jet, even multiple witnesses saying that it was, is not enough. Not that I don't necessarily trust them or their judgement but they could have been mistaken and there are several witnesses who saw varying sizes, flight paths, and colors.
It is interesting that you would point out that multitudes of eyewitnesses is not enough to convince myself of an aspect of the event, when far more eyewitnesses claimed explosions occurred in N.Y. yet you yourself are far from convinced of their existence.
By the way, a clear video or several videos would absolutely go a long way towards convincing me of a 757 and there is only one reason why I've never seen one.
I'm sorry but when a guy who himself is an expert that works for the company that built the engines says that he is positive its not what the gov't says it is, I cannot ignore him. If other "experts" claim that it is, then it comes down to who do you believe.
If all of the other missing pieces were there, the hole was consistent with the plane, pilots didn't dismiss the flight path and maneuvers as BS, and again there was some video evidence then it would be easy to say that my particular expert was mistaken. Unfortunately, that is not the case so its still an open debate in my mind.
It is not my intention here to debate who is responsible in this thread. Without question there are Muslim extremists who intend to do harm to Christians, Americans, and other groups of people but I know for sure that they are not hiding evidence or actively deceiving the public via gov't reports and experiments. Please, let us put aside any prejudices towards any groups and focus solely on what we (you and me) can see with our own eyes about specific aspects of the tragedy.
Only a blind man would say that the buildings didn't appear to be imploded, or that the hole at the Pentagon didn't appear to be consistent with the size of a missile not a 757, and the scattered debris field of 93 didn't appear to be from a plane coming apart in the air, even if science could prove otherwise.
Originally posted by Alfie1
If you scroll down a bit you will find the source of the "Rolls Royce does not recognize engine part" allegation which you appear to have accepted. You will see that it came from John Brown at Allison Engines, Indianapolis , a subsidiary of Rolls Royce from 1995. Allison Engines manufactured the AE 3007H turbofan for the Global Hawk so there is no reason why he should be familiar with a part from an RB 211 manufactured in UK.
William Rodriguez specifically said in his testimony to NIST that when the plane struck he first thought it was a generator that blew up.
William Rodriguez also said that the exact explosion you are speaking of happened BEFORE the plane impact.
He was referring to the explosion above him. The explosion you're referring to was the explosion he felt below him, which he claims occurred before the plane struck.