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.

 

Trusting and Doubting 9/11, a neverending story. Additional T&B-evidence

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: cantonear1968
a reply to: signalfire


The towers were nuked.

No they weren't. It's just silliness. On the same level of no planes/holograms/fly over. A nuclear weapon does not trigger a top down collapse and makes the site uninhabitable for 50+ years.

There is absolutely no factual evidence to suggest nukes were used on 9/11.


You obviously did not consider the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima prior to making your reply...I suggest you read up on how the buildings were destroyed and whether or not any people were forced to abandon these cities for "fifty years."

I am not saying nukes were used in the demolitions of WTC1/2/7, I am just saying your reply to the post is bull cookies...you know it, I know it, all God's children know it...




posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: totallackey

Ummm...
Yes, I did consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki and how the buildings were destroyed and concluded they bore absolutely no resemblance to each other.

If you differ in opinion please explain. The destruction radius of the nuclear bombs was about a full mile. Not the square acre of the WTC Towers.

I see no similarity.

And Dr. James N. Yamazaki, lead physician of the U.S. Atomic Bomb Medical Team assigned to Nagasaki in 1949, concluded a 43% increase in birth defects compared to control groups who did not experience the radiation. So don't confuse "uninhabitable" with no where else to go.


you know it, I know it, all God's children know it...

You were saying?



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: cantonear1968
a reply to: signalfire


The towers were nuked.

No they weren't. It's just silliness. On the same level of no planes/holograms/fly over. A nuclear weapon does not trigger a top down collapse and makes the site uninhabitable for 50+ years.

There is absolutely no factual evidence to suggest nukes were used on 9/11.


You know NOTHING about modern nuclear weapons. They are small and the radiation is down to undetectable levels within days. And the nukes were probably on every three to ten floors, set to go off from top to bottom. You didn't read the Prager material, did you? Because the evidence is in the dust and irrefutable. Like I said, Prager will debate all comers, but it might be nice if you read the material first, before making knee-jerk responses.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: signalfire

Could this explosion, prior to the plane's impact, been the result of a tactical nuke?



It had to be; all the evidence points to it. Thermite is laughable for that result (not nearly explosive enough) and RDX or other explosive wouldn't have produced the 'skin hanging off' result; that's a flash burn from the intense micro-second heat of the nuke - a fraction of a kiloton fission weapon. Many victims reported this strange extreme heat without any exposure to fire. Thank you for responding politely; I think you will really enjoy reading the Prager material.

While it's possible thermite/thermate was used as cutter charges in some places, it's a limited hangout in regards to taking down the whole building in the manner seen. Only nukes explains ALL the evidence from the explosive nature of the collapse, the burning cars immediately after the dust cloud blew through, the over 1000 completely missing people, the unaffected paper everywhere, and finally the residual heat in the pile for 99 days afterwards despite millions of gallons of water and Pyrocool, a radiation absorber, being poured on it. It was residual fission (the initial blast only uses a few percent of the fissionable material, the rest is a China syndrome of sorts).

Amazing how people didn't see this immediately, but we've been taught that nuclear blasts are huge things; the knowledge of how far the technology has come is pretty well hidden from the public. Look at the towers in mid-collapse - the dark smoke rising powerfully up from them is the core beams evaporating; the steel assemblies being blown out laterally are trailing 'smoke', but why, they weren't burning... this is actually them evaporating from the residual blast heat and neutron effect; you can follow them and some don't seem to even hit the ground intact, they're gone beforehand; the massive dust cloud is most of the concrete floor pans being exploded, their residual moisture boiling instantaneously, along with all the office contents and people also being turned to dust, microscopic pieces so small that a tremendous amount of energy, far in excess of the kinetic energy of gravity, would be required.

The debunkers and OS supporters can't explain it and never even try to. It's as if they can't see the evidence in front of their own eyes. Any theory of what happened that day has to fit ALL the evidence. Nothing else does, not Judy Wood's phantom space-based weapons or Steven Jones' thermite or the most laughable of all, gravity and an isolated fire.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: cantonear1968
a reply to: totallackey

Ummm...
Yes, I did consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki and how the buildings were destroyed and concluded they bore absolutely no resemblance to each other.

If you differ in opinion please explain. The destruction radius of the nuclear bombs was about a full mile. Not the square acre of the WTC Towers.

I see no similarity.

And Dr. James N. Yamazaki, lead physician of the U.S. Atomic Bomb Medical Team assigned to Nagasaki in 1949, concluded a 43% increase in birth defects compared to control groups who did not experience the radiation. So don't confuse "uninhabitable" with no where else to go.


you know it, I know it, all God's children know it...

You were saying?


I was saying your comment about how buildings were destroyed from the top...down and how the nuclear explosions would render the place uninhabitable for fifty years was bupkus...it still is...whether you like it or not.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: totallackey

Then you must not have read my response because there is nothing similar in the collapses and the drastic increase in birth defects in the years after the bomb make the place "uninhabitable" whether people are living there or not.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: cantonear1968




a reply to: LaBTop
Much too early to be possible at all for such strong, inner thick core columns



Can you please qualify this statement please.


you mean the 4 inch thick by 2 foot by 4 foot by 32 foot continuous load bearing vertical support...laced with cross, lateral, and diagonal bracing throughout.

NO floors within the core to crush the columns...the elevators, stairways and landing ALL go in-between these steel columns from the hat truss to the bedrock that is the core.....something removed resistance of the remaining 86 percent not involved with impact damage on the impact floor......

hey..I have a wicked AWESOME idea......wanna make ALL this go away, [not really though],....prove FIRE as claimed......or should I say......."warm steel creating new physics'


"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."


you claim nukes are fantasy huh........

then tell me how fire at one end of the building globally removes...

105 vertical feet of continuous load bearing support columns...
8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams
lateral cross and diagonal bracing throughout
tens of thousands of bolts and welds
interior partitions
office contents
utilities

all must be removed before that kink forms and the event of free fall acceleration begins....'globally and unified'.

hat is the only prerequisite for free fall and Shyam Sunder, 2008 NIST hypothesis crew at the tech briefing webcast agrees!!!

on page 16 of the provided transcript on the same page as this video

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"



but ALSO claiming "new physics' is the reason the earlier 2005 NIST found....


NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


why do they refuse to prove this NEW phenomenon called low temp thermal expansion that created conditions for global unified acceleration equal to g. within 1.74 seconds?



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

lmao RKOwens huh......what a guy.

has a cartoon of fire pulling in the the columns then quickly panning into a close-up of the collapse-in-progress to fraudulently claim a bow occurring before collapse.....something no continuous video shows.

awesome post!!!
s&f



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Every single "truther" argument has been countered. Pick one argument and make a thread. Not going to read 10pages of text to only have you change goal posts and ignore facts.


I'm not arguing and all I post are facts......

..and I even focus on ONE topic......just what you ordered, I change no goal posts and will even give you the ball FIRST!!!

cause I'm just that kind of guy....



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: signalfire

Are you aware that tritium, which is claimed to be some level of proof of a nuke detonation on 9-11, is in fact used in the illumination of exit signs? Of which there were likely quite a few in both towers.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: cantonear1968
a reply to: LaBTop

It does not show the line he is asking, so here it is in another form :
"Much too early to be possible at all for such strong, inner thick core columns"

Much too early to be possible at all for such strong, inner thick core columns

Can you please qualify this statement please.


Sure. it would be better if you had included my explanations in front and after that sentence too. OK, here it is :
The University at Newcastle in GB did some extensive tests on steel columns and beams framed modeled buildings they build at their labs, and concluded that it would take much longer, and with a lot more heat energy (higher temps) to let that steel even deform. The word model means here that they build them with a few floors only, and without fire-proving attached, to simulate the plane struck floors at the 2 WTC's. They did not use the much stronger typeof columns the WTC's inhibited.

University of Newcastle upon Tyne ... Nonlinear FE Simulation of Steel Structures under Extreme Loadings ..... Fire Resistance: Implications for Regulations and Standards of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks on the World Trade Center
edit on 14/7/14 by LaBTop because: That line shows up perfectly in my quoted text window, but not after posting. An ATS- BUG PERHAPS?



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   
NIST's director, Dr. Shyam Sunder, in a press-conference after the 2008 release of the Final Report on WTC 7 :

As far as we know, this is the first time in history that a building of more than 15 stories has collapsed, mainly by fire.


That remark fits one of my earlier posts here about Ryan Owens video about that subject.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Regarding Barry Jennings, this is a BBC page with lots of their information as they saw fit to release to their public :
news.bbc.co.uk...

It should be compared to this page posted already on page 1 by loveguy :
barryjenningsmystery.blogspot.co.uk...

The video of Barry's BBC interview is not accessible anymore via this page, it says BLIP removed it.
The BBC certainly is not much interested in conspiracies, let it be in governments based conspiracies.
They once were fiercely independent, but not anymore, nowadays they depend on government spendings, and have to walk a very tight line, or things get really ugly for the chief editors and programmers.

Another video explaining that Barry, in his 2006 BBC interview video, only retracted his "stepping over dead bodies in the WTC7 Lobby" remarks.

www.youtube.com...


It seems to me that Barry never could have known anything of the events at Tower 2 and then at Tower 1, by seeing it with his own eyes at that time (south tower, then north tower collapsed).
Since he and Hess were trapped inside the stairwell at the far backside of WTC 7, the north viewing side of it, while the twin towers stood 329 feet south of WTC7.

Out of that corner window on the eights floor, which Barry broke out with a fire extinguisher, he or Hess (seen in videos shouting from that window to a firefighter for help) could not have had any view on still standing towers directly.
He could however certainly have felt and hear everything of those events.


However, and nobody thought about that yet, it would have been easy for them to see both tops of the two burning giant towers as reflections in the opposite of them, glass lined buildings.

And thus his remark that he felt a "huge explosion that threw him up the stairs" is very strange indeed if you believe the official stories of 9/11. But also believe Barry's video taped words.

And Hess acknowledged Barry's "explosions" words in his own 9/11 afternoon interview also, only to retract that years later, after he became an associate in former mayor Giuliano's new law firm office.

These are the floorplans for the 8th through the 45th floors of WTC 7.
Got that from this very technical but thorough review of WTC 7 at www.wtc7.net :
www.wtc7.net...
However, notice this remark on top of it :

This copy of Chapter 5 of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study is marked up with comments in red, and an animation and illustration, by an anonymous author. It has been posted on the Internet under the title THE FEMA REPORT ON WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 COLLAPSE IS A TOTAL JOKE



Figure 5-2 Plan view of typical floor framing for the 8th through 45th floors.

Now compare that floorplan to this one from the 7th floor with the trusses :


Figure 5-6 Seventh floor plan showing locations of transfer trusses and girders.

That stairwell both men were trapped in at the 7th floor, after that explosion reported by Barry, is on top of five weight bearing trusses, girders and transfers meeting points.
Thus, that explosion could be one of the many reported that day in the vicinity of WTC 7, that took the spine out from that building. And finally the last blow was dealt at 17:20 to get the whole thing going. Probably a huge thermobaric bomb that blew the 7th and 8th floors apart.
After column 79 was however cut first, at several points to sever the horizontal beams from it, and let it sink a few meters down with diagonal cutter charges.And displacements charges to tilt 79 from its cuts and let it slip down.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   
And this is the video indicated on page 1 by cantonear1968 :

Title : Barry Jennings and Michael Hess: WTC7 accounts.
www.youtube.com...


7. DISCUSSION :
At first some best Viewer-Comments chosen by AlienEntity1 :

From Илиян Попов :

@AlienEntity1 : Your timeline on 1:38 is a little bit extended. If he had arrived about 08:55 and got to the 23th floor, it's about 2 minutes with the elevator.Than he couldn't access that anymore, may be another 2 minutes there, then went down +2 mins more. Than he went back with the freight elevator +2 mins. Made some phone calls, probably couldn't reach some people until someone told him to evacuate immediately + about 5 mins. Went down on 6th floor using the stairs, because the power went off + 5 mins.
2+2+2+2+5+5=18.We can ad another 5 mins to be sure and the final result should not be more than 25 mins.


From Jackblind1000 :

@AlienEntity1 : Jennings specifically says that when he broke out the window, he could see dust and papers everywhere and cars burning. That describes, perfectly, the aftermath of the WTC tower collapses. Perfectly. An explosion that took out the lower 7 floors of WTC7 would also do this.


From lolzroflcopterzzz :

The only thing I don't get is how Hess and Jennings could have missed the first tower collapsing when they were in the OEM. Shouldn't they have felt it and therefore reported about it?


From MeNot GuiltyRU as a reaction on lolzroflcopterzzz :

If you are talking about the first collapsed tower, WTC2, then you may give some thought to the possibility there were demolition noises going on at the same time in Building 7 to pre-weaken the structure. What a great cover for loud explosions than a collapse of a Twin Tower. Just saying...........



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
In the above video from AlienEntity1 :
At 8:52 Barry Jennings :

"All the time I'm hearing explosions..".

At 9:08 Hess talking :

I position, and quite firm on that : There were no explosions!


I have to say, that is the biggest discrepancy in that video, were there or where there not explosions? As I indicated in earlier post, the LDEO seismogram is showing small seismic peaks after the second tower collapsed, at least 4 of them, in their smallest seismogram of the whole day of 9/11.
As I said, they called it additional collapses. I call it more evidence of explosions collaborating all the eyewitness and news-reporters remarks on TV that day, about further explosions heard about every twenty minutes after 10:30 AM.

I have to admit however that the time-line AlienEntity1 lays out in front of us, seems to me very logical and in accordance with all the facts we all know by now.

So, was Barry confused about a few things? I do think so.
What I can't fit in AE1's reasoning in his video, is Barry's remark about him hanging on a railing left over from the stairwell at the 7th floor. And both men agreeing that they were now TRAPPED, and both thereby indicating that that stairwell really was broken down.
What could have caused that event?

Note the position of that stairwell, deep in WTC 7's NORTH part.Beside the west side elevators.
So how could a Vierendeel piece that hit the center of the SOUTH-side's parapet roof line at floor 47 and which scooped out quite a chunk of that SOUTH center of the roof, about 3 floors deep and about 5 meters inside, been the cause of a stairwell collapse?

Or another Vierendeel piece that hit and kept stuck in the SOUTHeast corner after scooping out about 6 floors worth of corner rooms?
Both events seem to me, far too far away from the stairs that collapsed at the NORTH-west side in the back of the building, on the 6th floor and downwards, according to Hess and Jennings.

And one other thing, Hess avoids the reason for that stairwell collapse as the plague, he only emphasized his recollection of hearing no explosions at all. Honestly said, I think he is lying about exactly that event. When you are caught in such an event, you will remember at least the noises that accompanied that event. And the collapse of a whole stairwell is not going to pass silently.

In one of my above videos, the one with the firefighter in it, down in the street behind the WTC 7, and Hess standing in that broken by Barry, corner window at the 8th floor, you also hear a loud, secondary explosion, after Hess stops shouting to that firefighter on the street below him. And that explosion seems to come from the huge basement entrance where the cameraman stood in front of, at the WTC 7's north side.
Ask Hess if he forgot that explosion too....
Or that phone-boot video, with that double crackling loud explosion sound. That phone-boot was just one block north of WTC 7.


I stress this out to all the relatively freshly entered new members and anonymous readers :

I have all these subjects already addressed extensively during the last 9 years at this website.
And before at others.
Just Search ATS for example with my screen name and a leading name or subject, f.ex. : LaBTop Hess , LaBTop Jennings , LaBTop seismic, etc.
Try to keep it at 2 words maximum, that gives the best results.
Or simply use Google. Then ad ATS to your 2 search terms.
Most of the time Google will come up in the first page top returns, already with ATS threads/posts.

You don't have to agree with all my points, it's just a great 9/11 research-assist.

=======================================================



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: cantonear1968

Two Important words used over and over again, and for Dramatic Effect!

GROUND ZERO.

The term ground zero (sometimes also known as surface zero[1] as distinguished from zero point)[2] describes the point on the Earth's surface closest to a detonation.[3] In the case of an explosion above the ground, ground zero refers to the point on the ground directly below the detonation.

It looked like Nuke, smells like Nuke, cars for miles are burnt like Nuke, not sure how many more examples of TOTAL DESTRUCTION are needed to show

NUKE!!!



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Title : CIA Insider Tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view, America!
www.youtube.com...


8. DISCUSSION :

This really is an interesting 24 minutes read and view.
At 10:15 : Eyewitness covered with blood on his face, and dusted, gets lead away by the arm by a guy with a black FBI jacket on, and a "suit", both with white mouth caps on, perfect camouflage btw...

Explanation : That victim was just getting riled up to explain more in-depth the explosions he witnessed, when these two goons suddenly take him away from the news reporters.
That has always struck me as some sort of hard evidence that state officials were already keeping the collateral damage to "The Plan" as low as possible.
Of course these two could have easily been camouflaging themselves as such, with perfect alibi's of course, one does not plan such a huge event on an amateur level...

At 10:25 : If you switch the thermite take by the YT-poster, to a thermobaric bombs scenario?
Realizing that these TB's literally blow up floors, ceilings and the floor spaces in between, and then in that process pulverizing all concrete in those two floors, above and under the office spaces where they were set off, then why would you only option for thermite (too slow I think) or mini-nukes (not realistic, I think) when you have these relatively silent thermobaric killers?
Developed specifically for the demolition of confined concrete and steel enhanced spaces.

Leaving no traces behind, and especially not when first responders were not really looking after these traces, and second responders and various researchers were heavily discouraged to go look for them. The White House intervened with the USGS samplers and forbid them to sample at Ground Zero. USGS was quite surprised and upset with that, is the least you can say.
And TB's also deliver huge pyroclastic dust clouds... All what is said up to 15:30 is also true for thermobaric weaponry. No traces....how convenient.....!

At 15:30 : Thermite provides its own oxygen.
When thermite burns at last, because you need very high temperatures to even get it going, f.ex. with magnesium lints, it will very quickly consume its build-in oxygen source.
As you can see in all these thermite videos. Very fast, very hot burns. Then, when all is consumed, fast cooling off of reaction products.

Don't see that happening at all. Because the crux of that whole "hot spots caused by the burning thermitic debris" theory is, that thermite (magically) suddenly can keep burning for weeks...

=======================================================



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Excellent video...

Transcript is here BTW.

This one about military drones used on 911 is worth watching as well:


The following evidence provides inescapable "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof that the south tower plane was a modified military drone aircraft and was not and simply could not possibly have been flight 175, piloted by Marwan al-Shehhi, who as a "pilot", the 9/11 Commission considered no more experienced or as well "trained" than his ex roommate Hani Hanjour of Pentagon fame who had difficulty controlling and flying a single engine Cessna.

9/11 flight 175 was a modified military drone



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: signalfire

originally posted by: cantonear1968
a reply to: signalfire


The towers were nuked.

No they weren't. It's just silliness. On the same level of no planes/holograms/fly over. A nuclear weapon does not trigger a top down collapse and makes the site uninhabitable for 50+ years.

There is absolutely no factual evidence to suggest nukes were used on 9/11.


You know NOTHING about modern nuclear weapons. They are small and the radiation is down to undetectable levels within days. And the nukes were probably on every three to ten floors, set to go off from top to bottom. You didn't read the Prager material, did you? Because the evidence is in the dust and irrefutable. Like I said, Prager will debate all comers, but it might be nice if you read the material first, before making knee-jerk responses.


You really should take some time to read all my posts on this below page 13 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is one of the most important ones freed from NIST by FOIA procedures :

You Tube video of the deep Boooomm 1.5 secs before the east-penthouse sunk into the roof of WTC 7.


The video starts at the 6 secs position, so you have 9 seconds to read the text, since at the 16 secs position, you can hear that low explosion sound that, 1.5 secs later, initiated the two penthouse collapses, followed by the global WTC 7 collapse. Which first took out about 8 internal floors columns and beams, girders and trusses at the bottom floors of WTC 7, causing the first 2.75 secs of 9.8m/s>2 true gravitational collapse acceleration sequence period.
Which can never be caused by natural causes like softened or bend steel.
Or caused by even the ridiculous low temp expansion theory of the final WTC 7 NIST report (btw invented by another institute, that NIST outsourced that problem to, of explaining the WTC 7 collapse).

Natural causes show in their acceleration diagrams, a V-shaped graph depicting such a natural collapse, since the collapsing structure will meet resistance of the still remaining intact parts of it. And thus forcing the graph line to bend upwards to show that resistance as a result.

The WTC 7 graph shows the first 2.75 secs of the start of the global collapse (the sinking of the total roof line) as a perfect straight graph line in its acceleration diagram, that mimics 9.8 m/s>2 gravitational acceleration, like in a vacuum. That kind of acceleration speed you only get with explosive Implosion jobs.
Meaning all resistance under a high rise building is removed by that process.

Btw, David Chandler proved the same lack of underlying resistance for the WTC 1, north tower top part collapsing.!
He graphed a specific point on the corner of its roof line, when its global collapse started.
Result : more than 8 secs of a straight line downwards, with no V-shaped line which you should expect for a natural occurring collapse.
The French building's natural collapse, resulting in a V-shaped measured graph line already after 2 secs, you can find in my signature-Links.!

This link from my page 13 is an extensive explanation of Thermobaric Bomb's with lots of links, from 2012 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Concentrate on this old thread-post for info on the nuclear subject :
The Complete 9/11 Timeline ( interactive ) :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

=======================================================

edit on 16/7/14 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

I envy your dedication Lab...you put much time into your posts.

Sadly...I feel it's all for nothing...in the end...this horrifying truth can never be truly revealed, no matter how much evidence there is to support a conspiracy (inside job)...the fallout would be so devastating that no living soul in the know would dare release it.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join