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 InhaleExhale
Simple images of the aftermath show this indisputable fact of falling into its own footprint to be false.
I do not wish to sound like I am after a debate, however some statements you have made are the same as what you have called them "truthers" make which are false but get keep getting regurgitated in this forum.
Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by OratoryHeist
You state that you don’t refer to the likes of Alex Jones or the truther camps for your information regarding 9/11 and nor to you seek out their productions. You have also said that you believe “people need to think for themselves more on ATS” and have observed that for many if they can’t read about it online or watch a youtube clip they are uninterested. Interestingly you have also said that you have done your own research I commend you for this. However I do have one question could you please tell me what research you have done, at what level, and what sources you used.
Because it seems to me based on this and other threads that you repeated state that others much “think for themselves” and demand their “evidence” yet you are not quite so forthcoming when it comes to showing us your own evidence or demonstrating that you think for yourself as most of what you say does sound like truther rhetoric.
Regardless of whether or not you intend to do so much of what you say lacks any evidence and sounds very much like conspiracy theorist conjecture. Your posts are filled with statements like “what if…” and “you don’t know that for sure” with plenty of claims that “you don’t think for yourself” with lots of other assumptions and in addition to this you seem bent on defending the idea that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack. Basically you are all talk with very little substance.
You can of course redeem this by actually telling us about your research and showing us your sources which you seem very reluctant to do.
Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Why do people do this when it comes to 9/11, they look at what happened in the past and refuse to recognise the events of 9/11 as unique. Sure Murrah building stayed standing after a bomb blast big deal, it was not a exact replica of WTC 7 that had another building essentially collapse onto it, it was not subject to the exact same forces as WTC 7.
Actually another building collapsed and only hit the south side of WTC 7, nothing collapsed onto it. But WTC 3, WCT 4 and WTC 6 had the towers collapse onto them but they didn't collapse like seven did. Strange isn't it?
People talk about WTC 7 all the time what about WTC 4, 5, 6 and the Marriott that all had to be demolished, heck there wasn’t much left of them to demolish. WTC 7 is treated like it’s the “smoking gun” it’s not, I mean if they demolished the other buildings within a few days/ weeks then why would it matter about WTC 7. I ask this question all the time and never get a reasonable answer. Why bother demolishing WTC 7?
Yes these buildings make WTC 7 even more obvious. Check the tenants in WTC 7 and you'll see why? Well you won't but others will.edit on 11-11-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
But if you want to believe it was a terrorist attack, then that is your choice. I'm not arguing the small details with you, I don't need to.
Originally posted by InhaleExhale
If you for some reason think it was not a terrorist attack could you be kind enough to show how you came to this conclusion?
Cheers
Originally posted by OratoryHeist
Originally posted by InhaleExhale
If you for some reason think it was not a terrorist attack could you be kind enough to show how you came to this conclusion?
Cheers
Sure, by paying attention to what happened. Looking into what happened. All the answers are right infront of you for when you are willing to see them.
But if you want to believe it was a terrorist attack, then that is your choice.
The explosion's effect on the trees near the epicentre of the explosion was replicated during atmospheric nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s. These effects are caused by the shock wave produced by large explosions. The trees directly below the explosion are stripped as the blast wave moves vertically downward, while trees farther away are knocked over because the blast wave is travelling closer to the horizontal when it reaches them.
Soviet experiments performed in the mid-1960s, with model forests (made of matches on wire stakes) and small explosive charges slid downward on wires, produced butterfly shaped blast patterns strikingly similar to the pattern found at the Tunguska site. The experiments suggested that the object had approached at an angle of roughly 30 degrees from the ground and 115 degrees from north and had exploded in mid-air